The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-03-08
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR. J.

The defendant was tried and convicted in the District Court Of
Honolulu charge of poygmy and appealed to this court on
number of points of law several of which, varouv worded
substance that the evidence insufficient to sustain the
conviction.
The only question raised wLehehe alleged marriage
proved If such marriage took place all took place
China between the defendant who then China and
Chan SAM who then in these islands Considerable est
ony introduced the required in China for
marriage of virgin widow and respectively and
whether such marriages could be performed by proxy
absence of of the parties and whether such marriage by
proxy actually took place in the present case
While the evidence very satisfactory perhaps
fcient finding that marriage by proxy may
acted in China (the proxy being least sometimes rooe
and that the defendant through ceremony there and
thought she tcreupon became Chan Sans wife She appears
have admitted several after her after
her alleged second marriage that she married Chan Sam
All this might be sufficient proof that the alleged first marriage
had taken place required by Chinese laws customs if Chan
Sam had been present.
The general rule that marriages legal entered into
legal everywhere unless odious by the
iHed nations See Civ L. Sec 1872. The exceptions usually
nstanced poygmOus and ncestuous marriages To these
may be added marriages where the requisite element of
lacking for instance, if of the parties insane forced
through the ceremony and there cohabaon
wards Now marriage by proxy contrary accustomed
notions but whether it contrary the sentiment
of civilized nations that should be held void need under
take decide 1t said that such marriages have taken place
times in history generally between members of royal families of
different IA Am & Eng Enc. Law I'll, 49, and
that marriages may be effected by letter Bsh NJ & d. Sec
23 Assuming marriage by proxy may place lawfully
China it would still be necessary prove that the proxy
given 1t takes marry The evidence in this may be
sufficient show that the defendant did everything that she
thought necessary marriage and that she thought
that she married But Chan Sans part have
received sufficient Apparently he requested friends
to and
the money required pay her passage from China to Honolulu
But whether ne authorized marriage in China by proxy
peced the marriage be created after her arrival here
or whether he expected wife concbne the evidence does
not show 1t doubtful from the testimony whether he felt
bound when she arrived and there testimony tending show
that at most he expected be only concubne. Apparently
her being given that she be only concubne
was the reason for her declining go him and for her marry
ing another after her arrival here The parties cohabed
If he had present the ceremony China there would
doubtless be strong presumption that he consented But his
thousands of miles his cannot in criminal
prosecution be inferred from the that she through
the ceremony If marriage by proxy is legal in China and if
such marriage there would be legal here still there be
proof that requisite authority given. Without mutual
consent there can marriage 1t generally said that the
consent must be per rebd de prdesent per UrbG de future
cum copulq Assuming that the which the
rage arises may, like other contracts be entered into be
parties widely separated the assent and offer of
unicae to the other being deemed continue until and
acceptance by the other still there proof this of
sent on the part of Sam either per rerba de praesn
dc future copuld. Another question that need not
decide whether marriage by proxy valid in China would
be deemed valid here where of the parties the time
even mutual shown and aside from the question
of public polcv on ground that the laws, b
una of one country confer the marriage status upon
person domced in another country See Bis NJ & d. See
232
The Judgment of the District Court reversed and the defend
ant is discharged.
Deputy AtorneyGeeraI Z. p Dole for the prosecution
r. HcCdnts Stecart and F. j. Berry for the defendant