Case Name: Commonwealth versus Catharine Spooner
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1822-10
Citations: 1 Pick. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth versus Catharine Spooner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
Commonwealth versus Catharine Spooner.
A person having peen ordained as a minister of the gospel, according to the form observed in the Baptist churches, and being afterwards engaged by two Baptist societies in the town where he lives to preach to them alternately, half the time to each, is a stated and ordained minister of the gospel ” 3 and a marriage by him is valid. So of a Methodist minister, ordained and afterwards settled in any town for two years, according to the usage of that denomination of Christians.
This was an indictment for adultery. The defendant was married to her present husband in the year 1801, in the town of Dartmouth, where they both resided; but she denied the validity of this marriage, on the ground that the Rev. Daniel Hicks, by whom it was solemnized, was not “ a stated and ordained minister of the gospel ” (St. 1786, c. 3, § 1) in Dartmouth, at the time of the marriage.
The evidence relative to this point was, that about forty years ago Mr. Hicks was ordained at Rehoboth as a minister of the gospel, according to the form observed in the Baptist churches, and was thereby licensed to preach the gospel generally, and to exercise the office of a > Christian minister ; but he was not ordained as a minister over any particular society or church. Soon after this he removed to Dartmouth, where he has ever since resided, and was engaged by two Baptist societies in that town to preach to them alternately, half of the time to each, and he has continued so to preach, and to administer the Christian ordinances, and to solemnize marriages within the town. One of these societies has been included within the limits of Fairhaven, by Si. 1811, c. 130, establishing that town.
■ The case turned on the validity of the marriage, and this question was submitted to the Court without argument.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The marriage of the defendant is valid. This case comes within one decided a few years since in the county of Suffolk. There, a Methodist minister, having been previously ordained, was settled at Boston for two years, whicn was stated to be the usual length of time with that denomination of Christians for settling a minister ; and, upon an' application for a divorce, a, marriage by him was held to be good.
But a minister ordained over an unincorporated religious soc'cty, com posed of members belonging to different towns, is not a " stated and ordained minister of the gospel," within the meaning of the statute. Ligonia v. Buxton, 2 Greenl. 102. A person who has been once set apart as a public teacher of religion, according to the forms of the sect to which he belongs, is an " ordained minister," and, whether over any society or not, is qualified to solemnize marriages in the county where he has his " permanent residence," under the provisions of the statute of February 1791. (1 N. Hamp. Laws, 350.) Londonderry v. Chester, 2 N. Hamp. R. 268. A person ordained deacon, according to the forms of the Methodist Episcopal church, and commissioned by a bishop of that church to preach, administer the. ordinance of marriage, Sea., is an " ordained minister," within the meaning of the marriage act of 1820. Kibbe v. Antram, 4 Conn. R. 134. See also Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. R. 210; Gridley v. Clark, 2 Pick. 403; Ruggles v. Kimball, 12 Mass. R. 337; Baldwin v McClinch, 1 Greenl. 102.