[1281]Voorhies and Saunders,Revised Code of La.(1888), 63;Merrick,Rev. Civil Code(1900), 25.[1282]Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 210;Wilson,Stat. of Okla.(1903), I, 858. Earlier one witness was sufficient:Stat. of Okla.(1893), 669, 670.Cf.Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 810.[1283]It appears to be assumed in the earlier statutes of Georgia that the celebration before a minister or magistrate is to be according to the Anglican ritual:Cobb,Analysis of the Stat. of Ga.(1846), 292, 293.[1284]Code(1884), 609;ibid.(1896), 1039.[1285]Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 210.[1286]Code(1883), I, 689;Laws(1871-72), chap. 193, sec. 3.[1287]Digest(1894), 1127; seeRev. Stat.(1838), 537;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 509.[1288]Wright,Report, 57.[1289]Rev. Stat. of Arizona(1887), 372;ibid.(1901), 810.[1290]Act of March 21, 1889:Arizona Session Laws(1889), 58. This provision seems not to be retained in theRev. Stat.of 1901.[1291]In West Virginia the penalty is confinement in jail for not exceeding one year, or a fine of $500, or both:Code(1900), 972; in Virginia it is not exceeding one year in jail and a fine of not more than $500:Code(1887), 899; in Kentucky, not exceeding three years in the penitentiary, and the same penalty for falsely personating father, mother, or guardian:Kentucky Stat.(1894), 766;ibid.(1899), 824.[1292]Miss. Ann. Code(1892), 679.[1293]Tenn. Code(1884), 610, 611;ibid.(1896), 104.[1294]Code of Va.(1887), 555;Code of W. Va.(1900), 655;Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763, 764;Code of Ga.(1882), 393.[1295]See Danielv.Sams, 17Florida Rep., 487, an interesting case involving a slave marriage.[1296]Littell,Kentucky Stat., II (1810), 571, 572;Cooper,Stat. at Large of S. C., II, 475, 476;Brevard,Alphabetical Digest, II (1814), 41-44;Rev. Stat.(1873), 481.[1297]Code of Va.(1887), 556.[1298]Colored persons cohabiting as husband and wife before Feb. 28, 1867, were recognized as such in West Virginia:Code(1900), 655; similarly in Tennessee:Code(1884), 609, 610; before March 12, 1872, in South Carolina:Rev. Stat.(1894), I, 753; when so living on Aug. 15, 1870, in Texas:Rev. Civil Laws(1888), I, 879; before Dec. 14, 1866, in Florida:Acts and Resolves(1866), 22,Rev. Stat.(1892), 681; before Dec. 20, 1866, in Arkansas:Digest(1894), 1128.[1299]Moore,Code of D. C.(1902), 268.[1300]Code of Md.(1888), II, 977, 978.[1301]Subject to prosecution and punishment for fornication, or fornication and adultery, for refusal:Code of Ga.(1882), 356, 357.Cf.Acts(1865-66), 239, 240;Acts(1866), 156, 157; and also 61Georgia Reports, 306, and 40Georgia Reports, 244.[1302]Digest of Ark.(1894), 1125;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507; the same inRev. Stat.(1838), 553;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1899), I, 1035:Compiled Laws of N. M.(1897), 405.But the Oklahoma statute of 1893 adds: "Consent alone will not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization, or by a mutual assumption of marital rights, duties, or obligations."—Statutes(1893), 668. By the act of 1897 for this passage is substituted: "and the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained, or abrogated as provided by law."—Session Laws(1897), 208.[1303]Voorhies and Saunders,Revised Code of La.(1888), 60, 61;cf.the act of 1807, inDigest of Civil Laws Now in Force(1808), 24; orLislet,Gen. Digest(1828), 4; orCode Civil(1825), 80-82.[1304]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 805.[1305]Code of Ga.(1882), 392.Cf.the law of North Carolina above cited:Code of N. C.(1883), I, 689.[1306]For both sexes seeCode of Ala.(1897), 829;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1125; alsoRev. Stat.(1835), 535;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507;Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;Code of Ga.(1896), II, 222;Kentucky Stat.(1899), 822;Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 807;Rev. Code of La.(1888), 61;Merrick,Rev. Civ. Code of La.(1900), 23;Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 208;Wilson,Stat. of Okla.(1903), I, 857;Comp. Laws of N. M.(1897), 407;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 688;Rev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 878 (law of 1837);Ann. Civil Stat. of Texas(1897), I, 1082;Code of Va.(1887), 560, 561;Acts of W. Va.(1897), chap. 34;Code of W. Va.(1900), 661;Moore,Code of D. C., 265.Cf.Wright,Report, 29.[1307]By inference from the law below cited.[1308]For both sexes seeCode of Ala.(1897), 828;Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;ibid.(1901), 810;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1129, 874;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 413, 510;Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 679;Stat. of Ky.(1899), 824;Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 208, 209;Rev. Code of La.(1888), 61, and the same in 1807,Lislet'sGeneral Digest(1828), II, 5;Maryland Code(1888), I, 976, or inLaws(1886), chap. 497;Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1899), I, 1037;Compiled Laws of N. M.(1897), 405, 406, 407;Rev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 378;Ann. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1897), I, 1082;Code of Va.(1887), 555;Code of W. Va.(1900), 654;Compiled Laws of D. C.(1894), 273;Acts of Tenn.(1899), 36.[1309]Code of Ga.(1882), 393;ibid.(1896), II, 223.Cf.Wright,Report, 30.[1310]Rev. Stat. of S. C.(1894), II, 347, 348.[1311]Code of Ala.(1897), I, 828, 829;cf.Wright,Report, 29.[1312]Kentucky Stat.(1899), 825. But the marriage of an infant without consent is not for that reason void: Canonv.Alsbury, 1A. K. Marshall,Kentucky Reports, 76.[1313]Code of W. Va.(1900), 656.TheRev. Code of S. C.(1873), 441, contains the provision that if any "woman, child or maiden, being above the age of twelve years, and under the age of sixteen years, do at any time consent or agree to any contract of matrimony," against the will or without the knowledge of parent or guardian, "by secret letters, messages, or otherwise," she shall forfeit her estate, including lands, tenements, and hereditaments, "to the next of kin who next would inherit, during the life of the offender, then to the one who would have inherited had there been no such child."[1314]Acts(1899), 36.[1315]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 806.[1316]Probably the "majority" of the grandparents of the two persons is meant.[1317]Lislet,General Digest(1828), II, 5, 6;Civil Laws Now in Force in the Territory(1808), 62.[1318]Rev. Civil Code of La.(1888), 62, 91, 92;Voorhies,Rev. Laws(1884), 236, 237;Rev. Laws(1897), 393. Since 1807 the council (or meeting) has been composed of at least five relatives or friends, summoned by the judge, and held before an officer, practically as required by the present law: seeCivil Laws Now in Force in the Territory(1808), 62. For failure to attend a meeting, when cited, there is a fine of $20, in the discretion of the judge to be applied to the expenses of the meeting. In place of absentees "friends" may be appointed:Rev. Civil Code(1888), 92.[1319]Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 820, for the first time expressly prohibiting marriage within "Levitical consanguinity;" but probably earlier the law intended the same restriction:McClellan,Digest of the Laws of Fla., chap. 59, sec. 8;Wright,Report, 32.[1320]Rev. Stat, of Ariz.(1887), 371;ibid.(1901), 809;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1125, 1126;Rev. Stat, of Mo.(1899), I, 1036;Ann. Stat, of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507;Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 208;Acts of La.(1900), 188.[1321]Acts(1865-66), 244, removing penalty for marriage of first cousins since Dec. 11, 1863, and repealing conflicting laws.[1322]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 806, 807.[1323]Assuming that this relationship is included in the restrictions of the Levitical law which is in force in Georgia, and probably also in Florida: seeMcClellan,Digest of the Laws of Fla., chap. 59, sec. 8; and compareWright,Report, 32.[1324]Act of Oct., 1788:Hening,Statutes, XII, 688, 689. Persons married contrary to the act shall be "separated by the definitive sentence or judgment of the high court of chancery."[1325]In 1827 the law forbidding marriage with a deceased wife's sister was considerably relaxed. The parties are no longer to be separated, but to be "deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, to be prosecuted by information, or indicted in the Superior Court of Law;" and on conviction they are to be punished by such fine or imprisonment or both, as the jury may determine:Acts(1826-27), 22. This law was still in force in 1841:Tate,Digest(2d ed.), 500, where the editor cites Vaughan's opinion in Hillv.Good, 2Virginia Cases, 61. But the restriction does not appear inCode of Va.(1849), 470, 471 (degrees).Cf.Leigh, 17.[1326]Act of March 15, 1860:Acts of the Assembly(1859-60), 188, 189. In West Virginia until later a man was not permitted to marry his brother's widow: seeActs(1872-73), chap. 161, p. 503, where the restriction is removed.[1327]Laws of Md.(1790), chap. xx, repealing the act of 1777, chap. 12, sec. 1,Laws of Md., 1763-87(1787), where these marriages are "void."[1328]Louisiana Acts(1827), 4.[1329]This dual restriction appears inCobb'sAnalysis of Stat. of Ga.(New York, 1846), 290, 291; but it does not seem to be retained inCode of Ga.(1861), 331 (prohibited degrees of affinity), and there is no later statute on the subject.[1330]In Alabama such marriages are incestuous and must be annulled by the court on conviction; but the issue born before annulment is legitimate:Code(1897), 828; in Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indian Territory, Kentucky, Mississippi, and New Mexico they are incestuous and void or voidable after decree:Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126; alsoRev. Stat. of Ark.(1838), 536;Code of Ga.(1896), II, 222;Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763;Comp. Laws of N. M.(1897), 406;Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677. In Maryland, District of Columbia, Missouri, and North Carolina they are absolutely void or voidable after decree:Code of Md.(1888), I, 973, 974;Comp. Laws of D. C.(1894), 271;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1899), I, 1036;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 688, 689. But the laws of New Mexico, while declaring these marriages "absolutely void," provides in sec. 1430 that they shall not be "declared void except by decree of the district court;" and the North Carolina act has the condition that no marriage followed by cohabitation and birth of issue shall be declared void after the death of either of the parties for any of the causes stated, except in case of unions of whites with negroes or Indians to the third generation. In Virginia prohibited marriages, if solemnized in the state, are void after decree, or when within the forbidden degrees, from the time of conviction for incest; and the law of West Virginia is similar:Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1891), 656, 661. See alsoCode of Tenn.(1884), 608;Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 820;Rev. Civil Code of La.(1888), 61;Rev. Stat. of S. C.(1894), I, 751; and compareWright,Report, 35-45.[1331]For example, in Virginia the penalty for marriage within the forbidden degrees is imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine of not more than $500:Code(1887), 898; in West Virginia, one or both of these penalties:Code(1900), 972; in Georgia, imprisonment in the penitentiary from one to three years:Code(1896), III, 116; in Maryland incest is a felony punishable by one to ten years' imprisonment at the discretion of the court:Code(1888), I, 511; in Missouri the penalty for the same crime is not exceeding seven years in the penitentiary:Rev. Stat.(1889), II, 907; in the District of Columbia, for marriage within the "three degrees of lineal direct consanguinity, or within the first degree of collateral consanguinity," the penalty for each is "five hundred pounds current money ($1333.331⁄3);" and within any of the other forbidden degrees of consanguinity or affinity, it is "two hundred pounds current money ($533.331⁄3)":Comp. Stat. of D. C.(1894), 272.[1332]Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1891), 612, 918;Code of Ga.(1882), 287, 288.[1333]Formerly in Maryland any person marrying out of the state to evade the law was fined 500 pounds:Kilty,Laws, 1777, chap. 12, sec. 6. Now each of the persons must pay $100:Code(1888), 523.[1334]Moore,Code of D. C.(1902), 266.[1335]Kentucky Stat.(1894), 764;ibid.(1901), 823.[1336]In Mississippi marriages out of the state, to avoid penalties of forbidden degrees, are declared void:Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677.[1337]See the lists inWright,Report, 35-45. On these marriages I have not found changes since 1887, the date of that compilation.In Virginia bigamy was formerly punished by death: see the act of 1792, inActs of Gen. Assem.(1794), 205; now the penalty is three to five years' imprisonment:Code(1887), 680; in West Virginia it is one to five years in the penitentiary:Code(1891), 918; in Florida, not exceeding five years in state's prison, or not exceeding one year in the county jail, or a fine of not more than $500:Rev. Stat.(1892), 820; in Missouri, not exceeding five years in the penitentiary, or less than six months in the county jail, or not less than $500, or by both a fine of not more than $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for not less than three months:Rev. Stat.(1899), I, 608, 609. Bigamy is prohibited inRev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 877;White,Penal Code(1901), 188;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126.[1338]In Texas they are prohibited and punished "when the female is abducted or forced into marriage;" but they are voidable when the license has been fraudulently obtained:Wright,Report, 43;Rev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 877, note; see Robertsonv.Cole, 12Texas, 356.Cf.Wilson,Supp. to Criminal Statutes(1900), 242, 243.[1339]See, for example,Kentucky Stat.(1894), 764;ibid.(1901), 822;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126;Moore,Code of D. C.(1902), 265.[1340]In North Carolina marriages are void when either person is "incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding":Code(1883), I, 688, 689; in South Carolina they are void or voidable when lacking consent of either party or for "any other cause going to show that at the time said supposed contract was made it was not a contract," provided not consummated by cohabitation:Rev. Stat.(1894), I, 752.[1341]Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763;Rev. Sta., of S. C. (1894), I, 750-52;Code of Ga.(1896), II, 222;Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1891), 612;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 688, 689;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126;Code of Ala.(1896), I, 828;Comp. Laws of N. M.(1897), 406, 407.[1342]In Kentucky marriages are void or voidable when not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society; but they are not so invalid if consummated with the belief of the parties or either of them that they have been lawfully married:Wright,Report, 39.The Louisiana act of 1807 makes one who is deaf and dumb from "nativity" incapable of marriage, "unless it be previously proved to the satisfaction of the judge ... that such person is capable of giving a rational consent." So also "criminals definitively sentenced to death" are incapable until pardoned; and "persons sentenced to whipping, imprisonment, pillory, or other infamous punishment" are prohibited from marrying, "until such punishment has been inflicted, or the offender pardoned."—Lislet,Gen. Digest(1828), II, 4, 5.[1343]By the statute of Tennessee marriage is prohibited between white persons and "negroes, mulattoes, or persons of mixed blood, descended from a negro to the third generation inclusive, or their living together as man and wife." Violation of the act is made a felony punishable by confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one to five years; though, on recommendation of the jury, the court may substitute a fine and imprisonment in the county jail:Code(1884), 608;ibid.(1896), 1038.The law of Alabama is in substance the same; although to the clause prohibiting intermarriage "to the third generation inclusive," theCode, sec. 4018, when affixing the penalty, adds the words, "though one ancestor of each generation was a white person": seeCode of Ala.(1897), II, 381;Wright,Report, 36.[1344]In 1810 the Virginia act of 1753, chap. 2, secs. 14, 15, for the prevention of that "abominable mixture and spurious issue," was still in force:Stat. Law of Ky.(1810), II, 572.[1345]In Georgia and Florida a person of color is one who has one-eighth negro or African blood in his veins:Code of Ga.(1882), 356;cf. ibid.(1896), II, 4, 224;Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 681, 111.[1346]In North Carolina, furthermore, a negro may not marry a Croatan Indian:Wright,Report, 42.The code of this state is almost vindictive in its temper. The marriages between whites and negroes or Indians "shall be absolutely void to all intents and purposes, and shall be so held and declared by every court at all times, whether during the lives or after the deaths of the parties thereto; and it shall not be lawful for the issue of any such marriage to be legitimated to the supposed father."—Code of N. C.(1883), I, 514.[1347]But seeAnn. Code of Miss.(1892), 677: The marriage of a white person "with a negro, mulatto, or Mongolian or person who shall have one-eighth or more negro or Mongolian blood" is declared "unlawful and void."[1348]Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;ibid.(1901), 809;Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677. In general, for the provisions regarding miscegenation, see alsoRev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 681;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507;Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763;Louisiana Acts(1894), 105;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1889), I, 908;ibid.(1899), I, 610;Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1900), 660, 661, 972 (void from decree);Maryland Code(1888), I, 523;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 514;Rev. Stat. of S. C.(1894), I, 753;Gen. Laws of Tex.(1891), I, 878; the same in 1837:Laws of Republic of Tex.(1838), 234, 235;Sess. Laws of Okla.(1897), 212.[1349]Illegitimate children are legitimized by the marriage of parents and acknowledgment of the father in Alabama,Code(1887), 530;ibid.(1897), sec. 364; Arizona,Rev. Stat.(1887), 371, 372; Florida,Rev. Stat.(1892), 686; Georgia,Code(1896), II, 254; Kentucky,Stat.(1894), 545; Maryland,Code(1888), II, 813; Mississippi,Ann. Code(1892), 172; Missouri,Rev. Stat.(1899), I, 740; Virginia,Code(1887), 620; West Virginia,Code(1891), 666.Penalty or prosecution for seduction is suspended by marriage of parents in Arizona,Rev. Stat., as cited; Kentucky,Stat., as cited; Missouri,Rev. Stat.(1899), I, 548; New Mexico,Comp. Laws(1897), 344; Texas, Act of March 25, 1899:Gen. Laws, 66: and Virginia,Code, as cited.Cf.Wright,Report, 27.Prosecution for seduction is also suspended on marrying the woman in Arkansas; but it is specially provided that if at any time thereafter the accused shall wilfully and without such cause as now constitutes a legal ground of divorce desert and abandon the female, then the prosecution shall be continued and proceed as though no marriage had taken place. In such cases the female may be a witness:Acts(1899), 23, 24.[1350]Laws of N. M.(1897), sec. 1346, pp. 391, 392,Cf.the law of Arizona,Rev. Stat.(1887), 371, 372.[1351]Code of W. Va.(1891), 612;ibid.(1900), 661.[1352]Code of Ga.(1882), 391;ibid.(1896), II, 221.[1353]For the act of 1748, seeActs of the Assem.(1769), 246-48.[1354]Act of May, 1780, inHening,Statutes, N, 361-63. Compare the acts of 1783 and 1784, where the system of banns or license is retained,ibid., XI, 281, 282, 503-6. Later the fee was fixed at $1:Tate,Digest(1823), 417.[1355]Act of Dec. 22, 1792:Acts of the Gen. Assem.(1794), 204, 205.[1356]Compare the law of 1794:Acts of Gen. Assem.(1794), 331, 332;Rev. Code(1819), 393-403. But in 1803 the justice is no longer required to sign and direct the license:Acts of Gen. Assem., 372 (act to take effect May 1, 1797). In 1832 the consent of the mother is declared sufficient to authorize license to minors when there is no father or guardian:Acts(1831-32), 27; and in 1848 so much of the law of 1832 was repealed "as requires the consent of the mother of any infant desiring a marriage license to be certified under seal;" and henceforth in all cases the written consent of parents may be attested by one witness. When for any reason the clerk's office is vacant license may be issued by the "senior justice of the peace."—Acts of the Assem.(1847-48), 165.[1357]Ibid.[1358]Iredell-Martin,Public Acts, 1715-1803(1804), act of 1778, chap. 7, I, 253. CompareLaws of N. C.(1821), I, 129;Rev. Stat.(1837), I, 386; andLaws(1871-72), 328-43. The register of deeds takes the place of the clerk of the county court as issuer of license in 1872. By the act of 1778 the bond necessary for license had been fixed at 500 pounds "lawful money."[1359]Scott,Laws of Tenn.(1821), Index at "Marriage":Stat. Laws of Tenn.(1831), 219, 220. But oral banns do not appear inCode of Tenn.(1858), 480-82.[1360]Littell,Stat. Law of Ky.II (1810), 64-69.[1361]See act of April 24, 1805:Acts of a Pub. and Gen. Nature(1842), I, 66.[1362]Act of Jan. 4, 1825:Laws of the State(1825), I, 527. Persons or societies solemnizing marriages are required to keep a record; and a general record must also be made by the registrar of the county. The provision of 1825 is repeated inRev. Stat.(1845), 730.[1363]Compare the act of 1777, chap. 12, secs. 5-12: seeKilty,Laws; orLaws of Md.(1787), at sections cited; andPoe,Code(1888), I, 975.[1364]Comp. Stat. of D. C.(1894), 272.[1365]Digest of Ga.(1801), 314. But by the constitution of the state (1798), Art. III, sec. 6,ibid., 40, the clerk of the inferior courts of the county, with powers of a court of ordinary or register of probates, shall issue marriage licenses.[1366]Digest(1801), 733.[1367]SeeHotchkiss,Codification, (1845), 329; orCobb,Digest(1851), 282, 819.[1368]Paragraph 1658, pp. 331, 332, of theCode of Ga., assented to Dec. 19, 1860, to take effect Jan. 1, 1862, provides for obtaining license, and "publication of the banns of marriage in a neighboring church, in the presence of the congregation, for at least three Sabbath days prior to its solemnization," all other marriages being declared invalid.Cf.Acts(1863-64), 48, editorial note. The change worked confusion. The preamble of the act of Dec. 14, 1863, declares that the "innovation" will "have the effect of giving rise to perplexing questions of legitimacy of children, and rights of property; and to domestic unhappiness." Therefore the paragraph is repealed, and marriages already solemnized under it are validated:ibid., 48.For the present law seeCode of Ga.(1896), II, 223, 221.[1369]Act of 1807:Lislet,General Digest(1828), II, 6-8.[1370]Merrick,Rev. Civil Code(1900), I, 21-25. But if objection be made on oath, the marriage may be suspended for ten days by the judge.[1371]In West Virginia, where there is no lay celebration, the form of license is as follows: "To any person licensed to celebrate marriages: You are hereby authorized to join together in the holy state of matrimony, according to the rites and ceremonies of your church or religious denomination, and the laws of the state of West Virginia, —— —— and —— ——. Given under my hand, as clerk of the county court of ——, this —— day of ——."—Code(1891), 607.[1372]When either person is under sixteen, a license will not be issued without written consent of parent or guardian:Acts of Tenn.(1899), 36.[1373]In Baltimore city license is issued by the clerk of the court of common pleas:Code(1888), I, 975; in St. Louis, by the city recorder:Wright,Report, 49 n.cc.[1374]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 807-9.
[1281]Voorhies and Saunders,Revised Code of La.(1888), 63;Merrick,Rev. Civil Code(1900), 25.
[1281]Voorhies and Saunders,Revised Code of La.(1888), 63;Merrick,Rev. Civil Code(1900), 25.
[1282]Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 210;Wilson,Stat. of Okla.(1903), I, 858. Earlier one witness was sufficient:Stat. of Okla.(1893), 669, 670.Cf.Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 810.
[1282]Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 210;Wilson,Stat. of Okla.(1903), I, 858. Earlier one witness was sufficient:Stat. of Okla.(1893), 669, 670.Cf.Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 810.
[1283]It appears to be assumed in the earlier statutes of Georgia that the celebration before a minister or magistrate is to be according to the Anglican ritual:Cobb,Analysis of the Stat. of Ga.(1846), 292, 293.
[1283]It appears to be assumed in the earlier statutes of Georgia that the celebration before a minister or magistrate is to be according to the Anglican ritual:Cobb,Analysis of the Stat. of Ga.(1846), 292, 293.
[1284]Code(1884), 609;ibid.(1896), 1039.
[1284]Code(1884), 609;ibid.(1896), 1039.
[1285]Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 210.
[1285]Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 210.
[1286]Code(1883), I, 689;Laws(1871-72), chap. 193, sec. 3.
[1286]Code(1883), I, 689;Laws(1871-72), chap. 193, sec. 3.
[1287]Digest(1894), 1127; seeRev. Stat.(1838), 537;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 509.
[1287]Digest(1894), 1127; seeRev. Stat.(1838), 537;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 509.
[1288]Wright,Report, 57.
[1288]Wright,Report, 57.
[1289]Rev. Stat. of Arizona(1887), 372;ibid.(1901), 810.
[1289]Rev. Stat. of Arizona(1887), 372;ibid.(1901), 810.
[1290]Act of March 21, 1889:Arizona Session Laws(1889), 58. This provision seems not to be retained in theRev. Stat.of 1901.
[1290]Act of March 21, 1889:Arizona Session Laws(1889), 58. This provision seems not to be retained in theRev. Stat.of 1901.
[1291]In West Virginia the penalty is confinement in jail for not exceeding one year, or a fine of $500, or both:Code(1900), 972; in Virginia it is not exceeding one year in jail and a fine of not more than $500:Code(1887), 899; in Kentucky, not exceeding three years in the penitentiary, and the same penalty for falsely personating father, mother, or guardian:Kentucky Stat.(1894), 766;ibid.(1899), 824.
[1291]In West Virginia the penalty is confinement in jail for not exceeding one year, or a fine of $500, or both:Code(1900), 972; in Virginia it is not exceeding one year in jail and a fine of not more than $500:Code(1887), 899; in Kentucky, not exceeding three years in the penitentiary, and the same penalty for falsely personating father, mother, or guardian:Kentucky Stat.(1894), 766;ibid.(1899), 824.
[1292]Miss. Ann. Code(1892), 679.
[1292]Miss. Ann. Code(1892), 679.
[1293]Tenn. Code(1884), 610, 611;ibid.(1896), 104.
[1293]Tenn. Code(1884), 610, 611;ibid.(1896), 104.
[1294]Code of Va.(1887), 555;Code of W. Va.(1900), 655;Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763, 764;Code of Ga.(1882), 393.
[1294]Code of Va.(1887), 555;Code of W. Va.(1900), 655;Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763, 764;Code of Ga.(1882), 393.
[1295]See Danielv.Sams, 17Florida Rep., 487, an interesting case involving a slave marriage.
[1295]See Danielv.Sams, 17Florida Rep., 487, an interesting case involving a slave marriage.
[1296]Littell,Kentucky Stat., II (1810), 571, 572;Cooper,Stat. at Large of S. C., II, 475, 476;Brevard,Alphabetical Digest, II (1814), 41-44;Rev. Stat.(1873), 481.
[1296]Littell,Kentucky Stat., II (1810), 571, 572;Cooper,Stat. at Large of S. C., II, 475, 476;Brevard,Alphabetical Digest, II (1814), 41-44;Rev. Stat.(1873), 481.
[1297]Code of Va.(1887), 556.
[1297]Code of Va.(1887), 556.
[1298]Colored persons cohabiting as husband and wife before Feb. 28, 1867, were recognized as such in West Virginia:Code(1900), 655; similarly in Tennessee:Code(1884), 609, 610; before March 12, 1872, in South Carolina:Rev. Stat.(1894), I, 753; when so living on Aug. 15, 1870, in Texas:Rev. Civil Laws(1888), I, 879; before Dec. 14, 1866, in Florida:Acts and Resolves(1866), 22,Rev. Stat.(1892), 681; before Dec. 20, 1866, in Arkansas:Digest(1894), 1128.
[1298]Colored persons cohabiting as husband and wife before Feb. 28, 1867, were recognized as such in West Virginia:Code(1900), 655; similarly in Tennessee:Code(1884), 609, 610; before March 12, 1872, in South Carolina:Rev. Stat.(1894), I, 753; when so living on Aug. 15, 1870, in Texas:Rev. Civil Laws(1888), I, 879; before Dec. 14, 1866, in Florida:Acts and Resolves(1866), 22,Rev. Stat.(1892), 681; before Dec. 20, 1866, in Arkansas:Digest(1894), 1128.
[1299]Moore,Code of D. C.(1902), 268.
[1299]Moore,Code of D. C.(1902), 268.
[1300]Code of Md.(1888), II, 977, 978.
[1300]Code of Md.(1888), II, 977, 978.
[1301]Subject to prosecution and punishment for fornication, or fornication and adultery, for refusal:Code of Ga.(1882), 356, 357.Cf.Acts(1865-66), 239, 240;Acts(1866), 156, 157; and also 61Georgia Reports, 306, and 40Georgia Reports, 244.
[1301]Subject to prosecution and punishment for fornication, or fornication and adultery, for refusal:Code of Ga.(1882), 356, 357.Cf.Acts(1865-66), 239, 240;Acts(1866), 156, 157; and also 61Georgia Reports, 306, and 40Georgia Reports, 244.
[1302]Digest of Ark.(1894), 1125;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507; the same inRev. Stat.(1838), 553;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1899), I, 1035:Compiled Laws of N. M.(1897), 405.But the Oklahoma statute of 1893 adds: "Consent alone will not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization, or by a mutual assumption of marital rights, duties, or obligations."—Statutes(1893), 668. By the act of 1897 for this passage is substituted: "and the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained, or abrogated as provided by law."—Session Laws(1897), 208.
[1302]Digest of Ark.(1894), 1125;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507; the same inRev. Stat.(1838), 553;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1899), I, 1035:Compiled Laws of N. M.(1897), 405.
But the Oklahoma statute of 1893 adds: "Consent alone will not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization, or by a mutual assumption of marital rights, duties, or obligations."—Statutes(1893), 668. By the act of 1897 for this passage is substituted: "and the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained, or abrogated as provided by law."—Session Laws(1897), 208.
[1303]Voorhies and Saunders,Revised Code of La.(1888), 60, 61;cf.the act of 1807, inDigest of Civil Laws Now in Force(1808), 24; orLislet,Gen. Digest(1828), 4; orCode Civil(1825), 80-82.
[1303]Voorhies and Saunders,Revised Code of La.(1888), 60, 61;cf.the act of 1807, inDigest of Civil Laws Now in Force(1808), 24; orLislet,Gen. Digest(1828), 4; orCode Civil(1825), 80-82.
[1304]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 805.
[1304]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 805.
[1305]Code of Ga.(1882), 392.Cf.the law of North Carolina above cited:Code of N. C.(1883), I, 689.
[1305]Code of Ga.(1882), 392.Cf.the law of North Carolina above cited:Code of N. C.(1883), I, 689.
[1306]For both sexes seeCode of Ala.(1897), 829;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1125; alsoRev. Stat.(1835), 535;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507;Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;Code of Ga.(1896), II, 222;Kentucky Stat.(1899), 822;Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 807;Rev. Code of La.(1888), 61;Merrick,Rev. Civ. Code of La.(1900), 23;Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 208;Wilson,Stat. of Okla.(1903), I, 857;Comp. Laws of N. M.(1897), 407;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 688;Rev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 878 (law of 1837);Ann. Civil Stat. of Texas(1897), I, 1082;Code of Va.(1887), 560, 561;Acts of W. Va.(1897), chap. 34;Code of W. Va.(1900), 661;Moore,Code of D. C., 265.Cf.Wright,Report, 29.
[1306]For both sexes seeCode of Ala.(1897), 829;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1125; alsoRev. Stat.(1835), 535;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507;Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;Code of Ga.(1896), II, 222;Kentucky Stat.(1899), 822;Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 807;Rev. Code of La.(1888), 61;Merrick,Rev. Civ. Code of La.(1900), 23;Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 208;Wilson,Stat. of Okla.(1903), I, 857;Comp. Laws of N. M.(1897), 407;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 688;Rev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 878 (law of 1837);Ann. Civil Stat. of Texas(1897), I, 1082;Code of Va.(1887), 560, 561;Acts of W. Va.(1897), chap. 34;Code of W. Va.(1900), 661;Moore,Code of D. C., 265.Cf.Wright,Report, 29.
[1307]By inference from the law below cited.
[1307]By inference from the law below cited.
[1308]For both sexes seeCode of Ala.(1897), 828;Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;ibid.(1901), 810;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1129, 874;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 413, 510;Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 679;Stat. of Ky.(1899), 824;Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 208, 209;Rev. Code of La.(1888), 61, and the same in 1807,Lislet'sGeneral Digest(1828), II, 5;Maryland Code(1888), I, 976, or inLaws(1886), chap. 497;Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1899), I, 1037;Compiled Laws of N. M.(1897), 405, 406, 407;Rev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 378;Ann. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1897), I, 1082;Code of Va.(1887), 555;Code of W. Va.(1900), 654;Compiled Laws of D. C.(1894), 273;Acts of Tenn.(1899), 36.
[1308]For both sexes seeCode of Ala.(1897), 828;Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;ibid.(1901), 810;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1129, 874;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 413, 510;Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 679;Stat. of Ky.(1899), 824;Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 208, 209;Rev. Code of La.(1888), 61, and the same in 1807,Lislet'sGeneral Digest(1828), II, 5;Maryland Code(1888), I, 976, or inLaws(1886), chap. 497;Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1899), I, 1037;Compiled Laws of N. M.(1897), 405, 406, 407;Rev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 378;Ann. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1897), I, 1082;Code of Va.(1887), 555;Code of W. Va.(1900), 654;Compiled Laws of D. C.(1894), 273;Acts of Tenn.(1899), 36.
[1309]Code of Ga.(1882), 393;ibid.(1896), II, 223.Cf.Wright,Report, 30.
[1309]Code of Ga.(1882), 393;ibid.(1896), II, 223.Cf.Wright,Report, 30.
[1310]Rev. Stat. of S. C.(1894), II, 347, 348.
[1310]Rev. Stat. of S. C.(1894), II, 347, 348.
[1311]Code of Ala.(1897), I, 828, 829;cf.Wright,Report, 29.
[1311]Code of Ala.(1897), I, 828, 829;cf.Wright,Report, 29.
[1312]Kentucky Stat.(1899), 825. But the marriage of an infant without consent is not for that reason void: Canonv.Alsbury, 1A. K. Marshall,Kentucky Reports, 76.
[1312]Kentucky Stat.(1899), 825. But the marriage of an infant without consent is not for that reason void: Canonv.Alsbury, 1A. K. Marshall,Kentucky Reports, 76.
[1313]Code of W. Va.(1900), 656.TheRev. Code of S. C.(1873), 441, contains the provision that if any "woman, child or maiden, being above the age of twelve years, and under the age of sixteen years, do at any time consent or agree to any contract of matrimony," against the will or without the knowledge of parent or guardian, "by secret letters, messages, or otherwise," she shall forfeit her estate, including lands, tenements, and hereditaments, "to the next of kin who next would inherit, during the life of the offender, then to the one who would have inherited had there been no such child."
[1313]Code of W. Va.(1900), 656.
TheRev. Code of S. C.(1873), 441, contains the provision that if any "woman, child or maiden, being above the age of twelve years, and under the age of sixteen years, do at any time consent or agree to any contract of matrimony," against the will or without the knowledge of parent or guardian, "by secret letters, messages, or otherwise," she shall forfeit her estate, including lands, tenements, and hereditaments, "to the next of kin who next would inherit, during the life of the offender, then to the one who would have inherited had there been no such child."
[1314]Acts(1899), 36.
[1314]Acts(1899), 36.
[1315]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 806.
[1315]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 806.
[1316]Probably the "majority" of the grandparents of the two persons is meant.
[1316]Probably the "majority" of the grandparents of the two persons is meant.
[1317]Lislet,General Digest(1828), II, 5, 6;Civil Laws Now in Force in the Territory(1808), 62.
[1317]Lislet,General Digest(1828), II, 5, 6;Civil Laws Now in Force in the Territory(1808), 62.
[1318]Rev. Civil Code of La.(1888), 62, 91, 92;Voorhies,Rev. Laws(1884), 236, 237;Rev. Laws(1897), 393. Since 1807 the council (or meeting) has been composed of at least five relatives or friends, summoned by the judge, and held before an officer, practically as required by the present law: seeCivil Laws Now in Force in the Territory(1808), 62. For failure to attend a meeting, when cited, there is a fine of $20, in the discretion of the judge to be applied to the expenses of the meeting. In place of absentees "friends" may be appointed:Rev. Civil Code(1888), 92.
[1318]Rev. Civil Code of La.(1888), 62, 91, 92;Voorhies,Rev. Laws(1884), 236, 237;Rev. Laws(1897), 393. Since 1807 the council (or meeting) has been composed of at least five relatives or friends, summoned by the judge, and held before an officer, practically as required by the present law: seeCivil Laws Now in Force in the Territory(1808), 62. For failure to attend a meeting, when cited, there is a fine of $20, in the discretion of the judge to be applied to the expenses of the meeting. In place of absentees "friends" may be appointed:Rev. Civil Code(1888), 92.
[1319]Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 820, for the first time expressly prohibiting marriage within "Levitical consanguinity;" but probably earlier the law intended the same restriction:McClellan,Digest of the Laws of Fla., chap. 59, sec. 8;Wright,Report, 32.
[1319]Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 820, for the first time expressly prohibiting marriage within "Levitical consanguinity;" but probably earlier the law intended the same restriction:McClellan,Digest of the Laws of Fla., chap. 59, sec. 8;Wright,Report, 32.
[1320]Rev. Stat, of Ariz.(1887), 371;ibid.(1901), 809;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1125, 1126;Rev. Stat, of Mo.(1899), I, 1036;Ann. Stat, of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507;Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 208;Acts of La.(1900), 188.
[1320]Rev. Stat, of Ariz.(1887), 371;ibid.(1901), 809;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1125, 1126;Rev. Stat, of Mo.(1899), I, 1036;Ann. Stat, of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507;Session Laws of Okla.(1897), 208;Acts of La.(1900), 188.
[1321]Acts(1865-66), 244, removing penalty for marriage of first cousins since Dec. 11, 1863, and repealing conflicting laws.
[1321]Acts(1865-66), 244, removing penalty for marriage of first cousins since Dec. 11, 1863, and repealing conflicting laws.
[1322]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 806, 807.
[1322]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 806, 807.
[1323]Assuming that this relationship is included in the restrictions of the Levitical law which is in force in Georgia, and probably also in Florida: seeMcClellan,Digest of the Laws of Fla., chap. 59, sec. 8; and compareWright,Report, 32.
[1323]Assuming that this relationship is included in the restrictions of the Levitical law which is in force in Georgia, and probably also in Florida: seeMcClellan,Digest of the Laws of Fla., chap. 59, sec. 8; and compareWright,Report, 32.
[1324]Act of Oct., 1788:Hening,Statutes, XII, 688, 689. Persons married contrary to the act shall be "separated by the definitive sentence or judgment of the high court of chancery."
[1324]Act of Oct., 1788:Hening,Statutes, XII, 688, 689. Persons married contrary to the act shall be "separated by the definitive sentence or judgment of the high court of chancery."
[1325]In 1827 the law forbidding marriage with a deceased wife's sister was considerably relaxed. The parties are no longer to be separated, but to be "deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, to be prosecuted by information, or indicted in the Superior Court of Law;" and on conviction they are to be punished by such fine or imprisonment or both, as the jury may determine:Acts(1826-27), 22. This law was still in force in 1841:Tate,Digest(2d ed.), 500, where the editor cites Vaughan's opinion in Hillv.Good, 2Virginia Cases, 61. But the restriction does not appear inCode of Va.(1849), 470, 471 (degrees).Cf.Leigh, 17.
[1325]In 1827 the law forbidding marriage with a deceased wife's sister was considerably relaxed. The parties are no longer to be separated, but to be "deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, to be prosecuted by information, or indicted in the Superior Court of Law;" and on conviction they are to be punished by such fine or imprisonment or both, as the jury may determine:Acts(1826-27), 22. This law was still in force in 1841:Tate,Digest(2d ed.), 500, where the editor cites Vaughan's opinion in Hillv.Good, 2Virginia Cases, 61. But the restriction does not appear inCode of Va.(1849), 470, 471 (degrees).Cf.Leigh, 17.
[1326]Act of March 15, 1860:Acts of the Assembly(1859-60), 188, 189. In West Virginia until later a man was not permitted to marry his brother's widow: seeActs(1872-73), chap. 161, p. 503, where the restriction is removed.
[1326]Act of March 15, 1860:Acts of the Assembly(1859-60), 188, 189. In West Virginia until later a man was not permitted to marry his brother's widow: seeActs(1872-73), chap. 161, p. 503, where the restriction is removed.
[1327]Laws of Md.(1790), chap. xx, repealing the act of 1777, chap. 12, sec. 1,Laws of Md., 1763-87(1787), where these marriages are "void."
[1327]Laws of Md.(1790), chap. xx, repealing the act of 1777, chap. 12, sec. 1,Laws of Md., 1763-87(1787), where these marriages are "void."
[1328]Louisiana Acts(1827), 4.
[1328]Louisiana Acts(1827), 4.
[1329]This dual restriction appears inCobb'sAnalysis of Stat. of Ga.(New York, 1846), 290, 291; but it does not seem to be retained inCode of Ga.(1861), 331 (prohibited degrees of affinity), and there is no later statute on the subject.
[1329]This dual restriction appears inCobb'sAnalysis of Stat. of Ga.(New York, 1846), 290, 291; but it does not seem to be retained inCode of Ga.(1861), 331 (prohibited degrees of affinity), and there is no later statute on the subject.
[1330]In Alabama such marriages are incestuous and must be annulled by the court on conviction; but the issue born before annulment is legitimate:Code(1897), 828; in Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indian Territory, Kentucky, Mississippi, and New Mexico they are incestuous and void or voidable after decree:Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126; alsoRev. Stat. of Ark.(1838), 536;Code of Ga.(1896), II, 222;Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763;Comp. Laws of N. M.(1897), 406;Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677. In Maryland, District of Columbia, Missouri, and North Carolina they are absolutely void or voidable after decree:Code of Md.(1888), I, 973, 974;Comp. Laws of D. C.(1894), 271;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1899), I, 1036;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 688, 689. But the laws of New Mexico, while declaring these marriages "absolutely void," provides in sec. 1430 that they shall not be "declared void except by decree of the district court;" and the North Carolina act has the condition that no marriage followed by cohabitation and birth of issue shall be declared void after the death of either of the parties for any of the causes stated, except in case of unions of whites with negroes or Indians to the third generation. In Virginia prohibited marriages, if solemnized in the state, are void after decree, or when within the forbidden degrees, from the time of conviction for incest; and the law of West Virginia is similar:Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1891), 656, 661. See alsoCode of Tenn.(1884), 608;Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 820;Rev. Civil Code of La.(1888), 61;Rev. Stat. of S. C.(1894), I, 751; and compareWright,Report, 35-45.
[1330]In Alabama such marriages are incestuous and must be annulled by the court on conviction; but the issue born before annulment is legitimate:Code(1897), 828; in Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indian Territory, Kentucky, Mississippi, and New Mexico they are incestuous and void or voidable after decree:Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126; alsoRev. Stat. of Ark.(1838), 536;Code of Ga.(1896), II, 222;Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763;Comp. Laws of N. M.(1897), 406;Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677. In Maryland, District of Columbia, Missouri, and North Carolina they are absolutely void or voidable after decree:Code of Md.(1888), I, 973, 974;Comp. Laws of D. C.(1894), 271;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1899), I, 1036;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 688, 689. But the laws of New Mexico, while declaring these marriages "absolutely void," provides in sec. 1430 that they shall not be "declared void except by decree of the district court;" and the North Carolina act has the condition that no marriage followed by cohabitation and birth of issue shall be declared void after the death of either of the parties for any of the causes stated, except in case of unions of whites with negroes or Indians to the third generation. In Virginia prohibited marriages, if solemnized in the state, are void after decree, or when within the forbidden degrees, from the time of conviction for incest; and the law of West Virginia is similar:Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1891), 656, 661. See alsoCode of Tenn.(1884), 608;Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 820;Rev. Civil Code of La.(1888), 61;Rev. Stat. of S. C.(1894), I, 751; and compareWright,Report, 35-45.
[1331]For example, in Virginia the penalty for marriage within the forbidden degrees is imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine of not more than $500:Code(1887), 898; in West Virginia, one or both of these penalties:Code(1900), 972; in Georgia, imprisonment in the penitentiary from one to three years:Code(1896), III, 116; in Maryland incest is a felony punishable by one to ten years' imprisonment at the discretion of the court:Code(1888), I, 511; in Missouri the penalty for the same crime is not exceeding seven years in the penitentiary:Rev. Stat.(1889), II, 907; in the District of Columbia, for marriage within the "three degrees of lineal direct consanguinity, or within the first degree of collateral consanguinity," the penalty for each is "five hundred pounds current money ($1333.331⁄3);" and within any of the other forbidden degrees of consanguinity or affinity, it is "two hundred pounds current money ($533.331⁄3)":Comp. Stat. of D. C.(1894), 272.
[1331]For example, in Virginia the penalty for marriage within the forbidden degrees is imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine of not more than $500:Code(1887), 898; in West Virginia, one or both of these penalties:Code(1900), 972; in Georgia, imprisonment in the penitentiary from one to three years:Code(1896), III, 116; in Maryland incest is a felony punishable by one to ten years' imprisonment at the discretion of the court:Code(1888), I, 511; in Missouri the penalty for the same crime is not exceeding seven years in the penitentiary:Rev. Stat.(1889), II, 907; in the District of Columbia, for marriage within the "three degrees of lineal direct consanguinity, or within the first degree of collateral consanguinity," the penalty for each is "five hundred pounds current money ($1333.331⁄3);" and within any of the other forbidden degrees of consanguinity or affinity, it is "two hundred pounds current money ($533.331⁄3)":Comp. Stat. of D. C.(1894), 272.
[1332]Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1891), 612, 918;Code of Ga.(1882), 287, 288.
[1332]Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1891), 612, 918;Code of Ga.(1882), 287, 288.
[1333]Formerly in Maryland any person marrying out of the state to evade the law was fined 500 pounds:Kilty,Laws, 1777, chap. 12, sec. 6. Now each of the persons must pay $100:Code(1888), 523.
[1333]Formerly in Maryland any person marrying out of the state to evade the law was fined 500 pounds:Kilty,Laws, 1777, chap. 12, sec. 6. Now each of the persons must pay $100:Code(1888), 523.
[1334]Moore,Code of D. C.(1902), 266.
[1334]Moore,Code of D. C.(1902), 266.
[1335]Kentucky Stat.(1894), 764;ibid.(1901), 823.
[1335]Kentucky Stat.(1894), 764;ibid.(1901), 823.
[1336]In Mississippi marriages out of the state, to avoid penalties of forbidden degrees, are declared void:Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677.
[1336]In Mississippi marriages out of the state, to avoid penalties of forbidden degrees, are declared void:Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677.
[1337]See the lists inWright,Report, 35-45. On these marriages I have not found changes since 1887, the date of that compilation.In Virginia bigamy was formerly punished by death: see the act of 1792, inActs of Gen. Assem.(1794), 205; now the penalty is three to five years' imprisonment:Code(1887), 680; in West Virginia it is one to five years in the penitentiary:Code(1891), 918; in Florida, not exceeding five years in state's prison, or not exceeding one year in the county jail, or a fine of not more than $500:Rev. Stat.(1892), 820; in Missouri, not exceeding five years in the penitentiary, or less than six months in the county jail, or not less than $500, or by both a fine of not more than $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for not less than three months:Rev. Stat.(1899), I, 608, 609. Bigamy is prohibited inRev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 877;White,Penal Code(1901), 188;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126.
[1337]See the lists inWright,Report, 35-45. On these marriages I have not found changes since 1887, the date of that compilation.
In Virginia bigamy was formerly punished by death: see the act of 1792, inActs of Gen. Assem.(1794), 205; now the penalty is three to five years' imprisonment:Code(1887), 680; in West Virginia it is one to five years in the penitentiary:Code(1891), 918; in Florida, not exceeding five years in state's prison, or not exceeding one year in the county jail, or a fine of not more than $500:Rev. Stat.(1892), 820; in Missouri, not exceeding five years in the penitentiary, or less than six months in the county jail, or not less than $500, or by both a fine of not more than $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for not less than three months:Rev. Stat.(1899), I, 608, 609. Bigamy is prohibited inRev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 877;White,Penal Code(1901), 188;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126.
[1338]In Texas they are prohibited and punished "when the female is abducted or forced into marriage;" but they are voidable when the license has been fraudulently obtained:Wright,Report, 43;Rev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 877, note; see Robertsonv.Cole, 12Texas, 356.Cf.Wilson,Supp. to Criminal Statutes(1900), 242, 243.
[1338]In Texas they are prohibited and punished "when the female is abducted or forced into marriage;" but they are voidable when the license has been fraudulently obtained:Wright,Report, 43;Rev. Civil Stat. of Tex.(1888), I, 877, note; see Robertsonv.Cole, 12Texas, 356.Cf.Wilson,Supp. to Criminal Statutes(1900), 242, 243.
[1339]See, for example,Kentucky Stat.(1894), 764;ibid.(1901), 822;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126;Moore,Code of D. C.(1902), 265.
[1339]See, for example,Kentucky Stat.(1894), 764;ibid.(1901), 822;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126;Moore,Code of D. C.(1902), 265.
[1340]In North Carolina marriages are void when either person is "incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding":Code(1883), I, 688, 689; in South Carolina they are void or voidable when lacking consent of either party or for "any other cause going to show that at the time said supposed contract was made it was not a contract," provided not consummated by cohabitation:Rev. Stat.(1894), I, 752.
[1340]In North Carolina marriages are void when either person is "incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding":Code(1883), I, 688, 689; in South Carolina they are void or voidable when lacking consent of either party or for "any other cause going to show that at the time said supposed contract was made it was not a contract," provided not consummated by cohabitation:Rev. Stat.(1894), I, 752.
[1341]Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763;Rev. Sta., of S. C. (1894), I, 750-52;Code of Ga.(1896), II, 222;Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1891), 612;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 688, 689;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126;Code of Ala.(1896), I, 828;Comp. Laws of N. M.(1897), 406, 407.
[1341]Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763;Rev. Sta., of S. C. (1894), I, 750-52;Code of Ga.(1896), II, 222;Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1891), 612;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 688, 689;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126;Code of Ala.(1896), I, 828;Comp. Laws of N. M.(1897), 406, 407.
[1342]In Kentucky marriages are void or voidable when not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society; but they are not so invalid if consummated with the belief of the parties or either of them that they have been lawfully married:Wright,Report, 39.The Louisiana act of 1807 makes one who is deaf and dumb from "nativity" incapable of marriage, "unless it be previously proved to the satisfaction of the judge ... that such person is capable of giving a rational consent." So also "criminals definitively sentenced to death" are incapable until pardoned; and "persons sentenced to whipping, imprisonment, pillory, or other infamous punishment" are prohibited from marrying, "until such punishment has been inflicted, or the offender pardoned."—Lislet,Gen. Digest(1828), II, 4, 5.
[1342]In Kentucky marriages are void or voidable when not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society; but they are not so invalid if consummated with the belief of the parties or either of them that they have been lawfully married:Wright,Report, 39.
The Louisiana act of 1807 makes one who is deaf and dumb from "nativity" incapable of marriage, "unless it be previously proved to the satisfaction of the judge ... that such person is capable of giving a rational consent." So also "criminals definitively sentenced to death" are incapable until pardoned; and "persons sentenced to whipping, imprisonment, pillory, or other infamous punishment" are prohibited from marrying, "until such punishment has been inflicted, or the offender pardoned."—Lislet,Gen. Digest(1828), II, 4, 5.
[1343]By the statute of Tennessee marriage is prohibited between white persons and "negroes, mulattoes, or persons of mixed blood, descended from a negro to the third generation inclusive, or their living together as man and wife." Violation of the act is made a felony punishable by confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one to five years; though, on recommendation of the jury, the court may substitute a fine and imprisonment in the county jail:Code(1884), 608;ibid.(1896), 1038.The law of Alabama is in substance the same; although to the clause prohibiting intermarriage "to the third generation inclusive," theCode, sec. 4018, when affixing the penalty, adds the words, "though one ancestor of each generation was a white person": seeCode of Ala.(1897), II, 381;Wright,Report, 36.
[1343]By the statute of Tennessee marriage is prohibited between white persons and "negroes, mulattoes, or persons of mixed blood, descended from a negro to the third generation inclusive, or their living together as man and wife." Violation of the act is made a felony punishable by confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one to five years; though, on recommendation of the jury, the court may substitute a fine and imprisonment in the county jail:Code(1884), 608;ibid.(1896), 1038.
The law of Alabama is in substance the same; although to the clause prohibiting intermarriage "to the third generation inclusive," theCode, sec. 4018, when affixing the penalty, adds the words, "though one ancestor of each generation was a white person": seeCode of Ala.(1897), II, 381;Wright,Report, 36.
[1344]In 1810 the Virginia act of 1753, chap. 2, secs. 14, 15, for the prevention of that "abominable mixture and spurious issue," was still in force:Stat. Law of Ky.(1810), II, 572.
[1344]In 1810 the Virginia act of 1753, chap. 2, secs. 14, 15, for the prevention of that "abominable mixture and spurious issue," was still in force:Stat. Law of Ky.(1810), II, 572.
[1345]In Georgia and Florida a person of color is one who has one-eighth negro or African blood in his veins:Code of Ga.(1882), 356;cf. ibid.(1896), II, 4, 224;Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 681, 111.
[1345]In Georgia and Florida a person of color is one who has one-eighth negro or African blood in his veins:Code of Ga.(1882), 356;cf. ibid.(1896), II, 4, 224;Rev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 681, 111.
[1346]In North Carolina, furthermore, a negro may not marry a Croatan Indian:Wright,Report, 42.The code of this state is almost vindictive in its temper. The marriages between whites and negroes or Indians "shall be absolutely void to all intents and purposes, and shall be so held and declared by every court at all times, whether during the lives or after the deaths of the parties thereto; and it shall not be lawful for the issue of any such marriage to be legitimated to the supposed father."—Code of N. C.(1883), I, 514.
[1346]In North Carolina, furthermore, a negro may not marry a Croatan Indian:Wright,Report, 42.
The code of this state is almost vindictive in its temper. The marriages between whites and negroes or Indians "shall be absolutely void to all intents and purposes, and shall be so held and declared by every court at all times, whether during the lives or after the deaths of the parties thereto; and it shall not be lawful for the issue of any such marriage to be legitimated to the supposed father."—Code of N. C.(1883), I, 514.
[1347]But seeAnn. Code of Miss.(1892), 677: The marriage of a white person "with a negro, mulatto, or Mongolian or person who shall have one-eighth or more negro or Mongolian blood" is declared "unlawful and void."
[1347]But seeAnn. Code of Miss.(1892), 677: The marriage of a white person "with a negro, mulatto, or Mongolian or person who shall have one-eighth or more negro or Mongolian blood" is declared "unlawful and void."
[1348]Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;ibid.(1901), 809;Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677. In general, for the provisions regarding miscegenation, see alsoRev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 681;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507;Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763;Louisiana Acts(1894), 105;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1889), I, 908;ibid.(1899), I, 610;Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1900), 660, 661, 972 (void from decree);Maryland Code(1888), I, 523;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 514;Rev. Stat. of S. C.(1894), I, 753;Gen. Laws of Tex.(1891), I, 878; the same in 1837:Laws of Republic of Tex.(1838), 234, 235;Sess. Laws of Okla.(1897), 212.
[1348]Rev. Stat. of Ariz.(1887), 371;ibid.(1901), 809;Ann. Code of Miss.(1892), 677. In general, for the provisions regarding miscegenation, see alsoRev. Stat. of Fla.(1892), 681;Digest of Ark.(1894), 1126;Ann. Stat. of Ind. Ter.(1899), 507;Kentucky Stat.(1894), 763;Louisiana Acts(1894), 105;Rev. Stat. of Mo.(1889), I, 908;ibid.(1899), I, 610;Code of Va.(1887), 560;Code of W. Va.(1900), 660, 661, 972 (void from decree);Maryland Code(1888), I, 523;Code of N. C.(1883), I, 514;Rev. Stat. of S. C.(1894), I, 753;Gen. Laws of Tex.(1891), I, 878; the same in 1837:Laws of Republic of Tex.(1838), 234, 235;Sess. Laws of Okla.(1897), 212.
[1349]Illegitimate children are legitimized by the marriage of parents and acknowledgment of the father in Alabama,Code(1887), 530;ibid.(1897), sec. 364; Arizona,Rev. Stat.(1887), 371, 372; Florida,Rev. Stat.(1892), 686; Georgia,Code(1896), II, 254; Kentucky,Stat.(1894), 545; Maryland,Code(1888), II, 813; Mississippi,Ann. Code(1892), 172; Missouri,Rev. Stat.(1899), I, 740; Virginia,Code(1887), 620; West Virginia,Code(1891), 666.Penalty or prosecution for seduction is suspended by marriage of parents in Arizona,Rev. Stat., as cited; Kentucky,Stat., as cited; Missouri,Rev. Stat.(1899), I, 548; New Mexico,Comp. Laws(1897), 344; Texas, Act of March 25, 1899:Gen. Laws, 66: and Virginia,Code, as cited.Cf.Wright,Report, 27.Prosecution for seduction is also suspended on marrying the woman in Arkansas; but it is specially provided that if at any time thereafter the accused shall wilfully and without such cause as now constitutes a legal ground of divorce desert and abandon the female, then the prosecution shall be continued and proceed as though no marriage had taken place. In such cases the female may be a witness:Acts(1899), 23, 24.
[1349]Illegitimate children are legitimized by the marriage of parents and acknowledgment of the father in Alabama,Code(1887), 530;ibid.(1897), sec. 364; Arizona,Rev. Stat.(1887), 371, 372; Florida,Rev. Stat.(1892), 686; Georgia,Code(1896), II, 254; Kentucky,Stat.(1894), 545; Maryland,Code(1888), II, 813; Mississippi,Ann. Code(1892), 172; Missouri,Rev. Stat.(1899), I, 740; Virginia,Code(1887), 620; West Virginia,Code(1891), 666.
Penalty or prosecution for seduction is suspended by marriage of parents in Arizona,Rev. Stat., as cited; Kentucky,Stat., as cited; Missouri,Rev. Stat.(1899), I, 548; New Mexico,Comp. Laws(1897), 344; Texas, Act of March 25, 1899:Gen. Laws, 66: and Virginia,Code, as cited.Cf.Wright,Report, 27.
Prosecution for seduction is also suspended on marrying the woman in Arkansas; but it is specially provided that if at any time thereafter the accused shall wilfully and without such cause as now constitutes a legal ground of divorce desert and abandon the female, then the prosecution shall be continued and proceed as though no marriage had taken place. In such cases the female may be a witness:Acts(1899), 23, 24.
[1350]Laws of N. M.(1897), sec. 1346, pp. 391, 392,Cf.the law of Arizona,Rev. Stat.(1887), 371, 372.
[1350]Laws of N. M.(1897), sec. 1346, pp. 391, 392,Cf.the law of Arizona,Rev. Stat.(1887), 371, 372.
[1351]Code of W. Va.(1891), 612;ibid.(1900), 661.
[1351]Code of W. Va.(1891), 612;ibid.(1900), 661.
[1352]Code of Ga.(1882), 391;ibid.(1896), II, 221.
[1352]Code of Ga.(1882), 391;ibid.(1896), II, 221.
[1353]For the act of 1748, seeActs of the Assem.(1769), 246-48.
[1353]For the act of 1748, seeActs of the Assem.(1769), 246-48.
[1354]Act of May, 1780, inHening,Statutes, N, 361-63. Compare the acts of 1783 and 1784, where the system of banns or license is retained,ibid., XI, 281, 282, 503-6. Later the fee was fixed at $1:Tate,Digest(1823), 417.
[1354]Act of May, 1780, inHening,Statutes, N, 361-63. Compare the acts of 1783 and 1784, where the system of banns or license is retained,ibid., XI, 281, 282, 503-6. Later the fee was fixed at $1:Tate,Digest(1823), 417.
[1355]Act of Dec. 22, 1792:Acts of the Gen. Assem.(1794), 204, 205.
[1355]Act of Dec. 22, 1792:Acts of the Gen. Assem.(1794), 204, 205.
[1356]Compare the law of 1794:Acts of Gen. Assem.(1794), 331, 332;Rev. Code(1819), 393-403. But in 1803 the justice is no longer required to sign and direct the license:Acts of Gen. Assem., 372 (act to take effect May 1, 1797). In 1832 the consent of the mother is declared sufficient to authorize license to minors when there is no father or guardian:Acts(1831-32), 27; and in 1848 so much of the law of 1832 was repealed "as requires the consent of the mother of any infant desiring a marriage license to be certified under seal;" and henceforth in all cases the written consent of parents may be attested by one witness. When for any reason the clerk's office is vacant license may be issued by the "senior justice of the peace."—Acts of the Assem.(1847-48), 165.
[1356]Compare the law of 1794:Acts of Gen. Assem.(1794), 331, 332;Rev. Code(1819), 393-403. But in 1803 the justice is no longer required to sign and direct the license:Acts of Gen. Assem., 372 (act to take effect May 1, 1797). In 1832 the consent of the mother is declared sufficient to authorize license to minors when there is no father or guardian:Acts(1831-32), 27; and in 1848 so much of the law of 1832 was repealed "as requires the consent of the mother of any infant desiring a marriage license to be certified under seal;" and henceforth in all cases the written consent of parents may be attested by one witness. When for any reason the clerk's office is vacant license may be issued by the "senior justice of the peace."—Acts of the Assem.(1847-48), 165.
[1357]Ibid.
[1357]Ibid.
[1358]Iredell-Martin,Public Acts, 1715-1803(1804), act of 1778, chap. 7, I, 253. CompareLaws of N. C.(1821), I, 129;Rev. Stat.(1837), I, 386; andLaws(1871-72), 328-43. The register of deeds takes the place of the clerk of the county court as issuer of license in 1872. By the act of 1778 the bond necessary for license had been fixed at 500 pounds "lawful money."
[1358]Iredell-Martin,Public Acts, 1715-1803(1804), act of 1778, chap. 7, I, 253. CompareLaws of N. C.(1821), I, 129;Rev. Stat.(1837), I, 386; andLaws(1871-72), 328-43. The register of deeds takes the place of the clerk of the county court as issuer of license in 1872. By the act of 1778 the bond necessary for license had been fixed at 500 pounds "lawful money."
[1359]Scott,Laws of Tenn.(1821), Index at "Marriage":Stat. Laws of Tenn.(1831), 219, 220. But oral banns do not appear inCode of Tenn.(1858), 480-82.
[1359]Scott,Laws of Tenn.(1821), Index at "Marriage":Stat. Laws of Tenn.(1831), 219, 220. But oral banns do not appear inCode of Tenn.(1858), 480-82.
[1360]Littell,Stat. Law of Ky.II (1810), 64-69.
[1360]Littell,Stat. Law of Ky.II (1810), 64-69.
[1361]See act of April 24, 1805:Acts of a Pub. and Gen. Nature(1842), I, 66.
[1361]See act of April 24, 1805:Acts of a Pub. and Gen. Nature(1842), I, 66.
[1362]Act of Jan. 4, 1825:Laws of the State(1825), I, 527. Persons or societies solemnizing marriages are required to keep a record; and a general record must also be made by the registrar of the county. The provision of 1825 is repeated inRev. Stat.(1845), 730.
[1362]Act of Jan. 4, 1825:Laws of the State(1825), I, 527. Persons or societies solemnizing marriages are required to keep a record; and a general record must also be made by the registrar of the county. The provision of 1825 is repeated inRev. Stat.(1845), 730.
[1363]Compare the act of 1777, chap. 12, secs. 5-12: seeKilty,Laws; orLaws of Md.(1787), at sections cited; andPoe,Code(1888), I, 975.
[1363]Compare the act of 1777, chap. 12, secs. 5-12: seeKilty,Laws; orLaws of Md.(1787), at sections cited; andPoe,Code(1888), I, 975.
[1364]Comp. Stat. of D. C.(1894), 272.
[1364]Comp. Stat. of D. C.(1894), 272.
[1365]Digest of Ga.(1801), 314. But by the constitution of the state (1798), Art. III, sec. 6,ibid., 40, the clerk of the inferior courts of the county, with powers of a court of ordinary or register of probates, shall issue marriage licenses.
[1365]Digest of Ga.(1801), 314. But by the constitution of the state (1798), Art. III, sec. 6,ibid., 40, the clerk of the inferior courts of the county, with powers of a court of ordinary or register of probates, shall issue marriage licenses.
[1366]Digest(1801), 733.
[1366]Digest(1801), 733.
[1367]SeeHotchkiss,Codification, (1845), 329; orCobb,Digest(1851), 282, 819.
[1367]SeeHotchkiss,Codification, (1845), 329; orCobb,Digest(1851), 282, 819.
[1368]Paragraph 1658, pp. 331, 332, of theCode of Ga., assented to Dec. 19, 1860, to take effect Jan. 1, 1862, provides for obtaining license, and "publication of the banns of marriage in a neighboring church, in the presence of the congregation, for at least three Sabbath days prior to its solemnization," all other marriages being declared invalid.Cf.Acts(1863-64), 48, editorial note. The change worked confusion. The preamble of the act of Dec. 14, 1863, declares that the "innovation" will "have the effect of giving rise to perplexing questions of legitimacy of children, and rights of property; and to domestic unhappiness." Therefore the paragraph is repealed, and marriages already solemnized under it are validated:ibid., 48.For the present law seeCode of Ga.(1896), II, 223, 221.
[1368]Paragraph 1658, pp. 331, 332, of theCode of Ga., assented to Dec. 19, 1860, to take effect Jan. 1, 1862, provides for obtaining license, and "publication of the banns of marriage in a neighboring church, in the presence of the congregation, for at least three Sabbath days prior to its solemnization," all other marriages being declared invalid.Cf.Acts(1863-64), 48, editorial note. The change worked confusion. The preamble of the act of Dec. 14, 1863, declares that the "innovation" will "have the effect of giving rise to perplexing questions of legitimacy of children, and rights of property; and to domestic unhappiness." Therefore the paragraph is repealed, and marriages already solemnized under it are validated:ibid., 48.
For the present law seeCode of Ga.(1896), II, 223, 221.
[1369]Act of 1807:Lislet,General Digest(1828), II, 6-8.
[1369]Act of 1807:Lislet,General Digest(1828), II, 6-8.
[1370]Merrick,Rev. Civil Code(1900), I, 21-25. But if objection be made on oath, the marriage may be suspended for ten days by the judge.
[1370]Merrick,Rev. Civil Code(1900), I, 21-25. But if objection be made on oath, the marriage may be suspended for ten days by the judge.
[1371]In West Virginia, where there is no lay celebration, the form of license is as follows: "To any person licensed to celebrate marriages: You are hereby authorized to join together in the holy state of matrimony, according to the rites and ceremonies of your church or religious denomination, and the laws of the state of West Virginia, —— —— and —— ——. Given under my hand, as clerk of the county court of ——, this —— day of ——."—Code(1891), 607.
[1371]In West Virginia, where there is no lay celebration, the form of license is as follows: "To any person licensed to celebrate marriages: You are hereby authorized to join together in the holy state of matrimony, according to the rites and ceremonies of your church or religious denomination, and the laws of the state of West Virginia, —— —— and —— ——. Given under my hand, as clerk of the county court of ——, this —— day of ——."—Code(1891), 607.
[1372]When either person is under sixteen, a license will not be issued without written consent of parent or guardian:Acts of Tenn.(1899), 36.
[1372]When either person is under sixteen, a license will not be issued without written consent of parent or guardian:Acts of Tenn.(1899), 36.
[1373]In Baltimore city license is issued by the clerk of the court of common pleas:Code(1888), I, 975; in St. Louis, by the city recorder:Wright,Report, 49 n.cc.
[1373]In Baltimore city license is issued by the clerk of the court of common pleas:Code(1888), I, 975; in St. Louis, by the city recorder:Wright,Report, 49 n.cc.
[1374]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 807-9.
[1374]Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico(1902), 807-9.