Evening journal., 1921-06-04
COMMON La w MARRIAGE
NOT VALID, COURT SAYS

at no time contemplated that Il
should be recognized. II a marriage
entered into without any publicity
or ceremony az an must be held
valid, why should there be any law
prescribing how a marriage shall be
consummated or what shall consti-
tute legal marriage?
our conclusion les that no matter
what marriage statutes and the Judi
cial Interpretation IN other states
may be. a fair construction OF our
own statutes makes secret and
non-ceremonial marriage illegal and
void. And we base our conclusion on
the apparent meaning and object OF
legislation on the subject. as we'll as
upon the manifest policy OF the
state. To make a good and legal
marriage something more is required
than cohabitation and repute. Even
secret agreement 20 live together
as husband and wife. and a reputa-
tion as such among neighbors and
friends, will not make Il a valid mar
riage.
In Milford vs. Worcester, Z Mass
as. Chief Justice Parsons. In deliv-
ering the opinion OF the court said:
But it has been argued that this
marriage, though not solemnized
pursuant 20 tho statute. is yet a law
ful marriage, had between parties
competent to contract marriage. and
not declared void by any statute.
This ground for supporting mar
riages deserves consideration: as, II
/ q be tenable. the consequences are
very extensive. Where the laws of
any State have prescribed no regula-
tions for the celebration OF marri-
ages a mutual engagement TO inter
marry. by parties competent TO make
such contract. would. in a moral
view. be a good marriage, and would
impugn no law Of the State. But
when civil government has estab-
| lished regulations for the due cele-
bration Of marriages. IL Is the duty
as we'll as the interest. Of an good
citizens TO conform 10 such regula.
tions. A deviation from them may
Introduce fraud and surprise In ths
contract; OF by a celebration with
out witnesses. the vilest seduction
may be practiced under the pretex
Of matrimony. II this 4
not a reasonable inference, fruitlesl
are all the precautions Of the Legis
lature.
1T has been truly observed by th'
counsel for the plaintiff. that a mar
riage engagement Of this kind is no
declared void by any statute. Blu
we cannot thence conclude that II ]
recognized as valid. unless we rende
In a great measure nugatory all tn
statute regulations on this subject
In Commonwealth VS.. Munson, 10
J Mass. 459. the court said: "Unde
all changes in the form OF the stat
utes Il has always been assumed Il
b this commonwealth. and In the Stat
2 OF Maine. which was originally
part thereof. that Except In the sin
] gle case Of Quakers or Friends) -
b marriage which Is shown not TO hav
been solemnized before any thin
81 person, acting or believed by eithe
- of the parties 10 be acting as a mas
( istrate or minister is not lawful {
n valid for any purpose.
- THE presence Of a person ofncia
n ing, or at least believed 10 be ofiic
T. ating, as a justice or minister beiI
n clearly required, according to a loi
Is course OF legislative action and
70 judicial opinion. TO constitute a val
II marriage in the commonwealth,
e would be superfiuous 20 examine q
e English decisions, or the cases cite
g az the argument showing that a al
G ferent rule prevails in some 9TH
- parts Of the Union. Whether 10
y wise and expedient so to change q
10 law Of Massachusetts, as TO allow q
a act. which so deeply affects the rel'
s tions and the rights Of the contrac
y ing parties and their offspring,
become binding In law by the mel
5. private contract Of the parties, will
i: out going before any one as a maj
= istrate or minister, is a matter Il
e legislation. and not for judicial col
.; sideration."
r In Denison. VS.. Denison. SO NJ
g 361. the court used the followir
n language:
a I'VE think we are safe in sayin
d that there never has been a time
II the history OF the State. whether b
D." fore its independence Of Great Br
a tain or since. when some celebrate,
l. was not, deemed necessary to a val
" marriage. 1T is true, u
IN act contains no express prohibitil
r or declaration OF absolute NULL
r Of marriages contracted per verba
;" praesenti; but it is plainly to be pc
l. ceived that such marriages, II d
r lowed, would contravene the spi
and policy Of the act. The implic
he tion from the provisions Of the a
ye are exceedingly strong against su
e. marriages. and the practice and CT
ly tom Of the people Of the State ha