the district and two witnesses, or before a superintendent registrar and some registrar of the district.

With regard to the first, it is sufficient to call a person who was present at the ceremony, and it will be presumed to have been in all respects duly performed; or, without calling any person who was present at the marriage, it will be sufficient, coupled with some evidence of the identity of the parties, see post, p. 339, to produce either the register or an examined copy of the register, or a scaled copy of *the register from the general registry office, which is made

evidence by the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 38 (repealed), and see [*329 now 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, ante, p. 165. And a marriage in a chapel where marriages have been usually solemnized, or duly licensed, will stand on the same footing as a marriage in a church. See as to nonparochial registers, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 25; as to licensing by a bishop, 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 36.

If the marriage have taken place in a chapel where marriages have not been usually celebrated, then it is necessary that the chapel should have been duly registered for that purpose under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 18, and that the marriage took place with open doors between the hours of eight and twelve in the forenoon, in the presence of some registrar of the district in which the chapel is situate, and of two or more credible witnesses. Id. s. 20. The marriage may be performed between the parties according to such form and ceremony as they see fit to adopt. Id. But, during some part of the ceremony, and in the presence of the registrar and witnesses, each of the parties must declare as follows: "I do solemnly declare, that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, A. B., may not be joined in matrimony to C. D." And each of the parties must say to the other, "I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, A. B., do take thee, C. D., to be my lawful wedded wife [or husband]." By s. 23, the registrar is bound forthwith to register every marriage solemnized in his presence in a marriage register book, of which, under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 38, a sealed copy may be given in evidence. The certificate was held to be sufficient prima facie evidence of the marriage having been duly performed in R. v. Hawes, 1 Den. C. C. 279; but it has nevertheless been the general practice to adduce some evidence both of the presence of the registrar and that the chapel was duly registered. In R. v. Mainwaring, D. & B. C. C. 132, however, four of the judges were of opinion that proof that the marriage was celebrated in a chapel, in presence of the registrar, was sufficient without proving that the chapel was registered; and this was followed by Willes, J., after consulting Pollock, C. B., in the case of R. v. Craddock, 3 F. & F. 837. If it should be necessary to prove that the chapel in which the marriage took place was registered, it may be proved by an examined or certified copy of the register. See 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14. Where a witness was called, who produced a certificate by which the superintendent registrar certified that the chapel was duly registered, which certificate did not purport to be an extract from or copy of the register, but which the witness said he received from the superintendent registrar

at his office, and which he compared with the register book and found to be correct, this was held to be sufficient evidence of the due registration of the chapel. R. v. Mainwaring, supra.

While the parish church was under repair, divine service had been several times performed by a clerk in holy orders in a chamber at a private hall, and the marriage of the prisoner with his wife was solemnized there. Though there was no evidence that the chamber at the hall was licensed for the performance of divine service or for marriages, it was presumed in favor of the marriage to have been duly licensed. Lord Coleridge, C. J., said: "We are of opinion that the marriage service having been performed in a place where divine service was several times performed, the rule 'omnia presumuntur rite esse acta' applies, and that we must assume that the place was *330] *properly licensed, and that the clergyman performing the ser

vice was not guilty of the grave offence of marrying persons in an unlicensed place. R. v. Cresswell, 13 Cox, C. C. R. 127; see also 1 Q. B. D. 446; 45 L. J., M. C. 77, where the case is not so fully reported.

If the marriage has taken place before the superintendent registrar under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 21, then the marriage must have taken place in the presence of that officer, and of some registrar of the district, and of two witnesses, with open doors, and between the hours of eight and twelve in the forenoon; and the parties must make the declaration and use the form of words above mentioned. The marriage is registered, like other marriages, under s. 23, of which register, as has already been said, a sealed copy may be given in evidence, ante, p. 329. How far the validity of the ceremony would be presumed upon the production of the certificate does not appear to have been yet discussed. If the prisoner should assert that the first marriage was void by reason of a prior marriage he will be allowed to prove that prior marriage by evidence of cohabitation and reputation, although the prosecutor is bound to prove the first marriage strictly. R. v. Wilson, 3 F. & F. 119.

Proof of valid marriage-proof that valid ceremony was performed-Jews and Quakers. These persons stand upon a peculiar footing. They have long been in the habit of celebrating marriages according to well-established rituals of their own, and such marriages have been recognized by the legislature. They are excepted out of the operation of the 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 31; and by the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 2, it is provided, "that the Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers, and all persons professing the Jewish religion, may continue to contract and solemnize marriage according to the usages of the said society and of the said persons respectively; and every such marriage is hereby confirmed and declared good in law, provided that the parties to such marriage, be both members of the said society, or both persons professing the Jewish religion respectively: Provided also, that notice to the registrar shall have been given, and the registrar's certificate shall have been issued in manner hereinafter provided." By

7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 22, s. 1, for "registrar" is to be read "superintendent registrar" in this section. By the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 119, s. 21, marriages between Jews and Quakers respectively may be solemnized by licence granted by the superintendent registrar in the form given in schedule (C) to that Act. See 23 & 24 Vict. c. 18.

Proof of valid marriage—proof that valid ceremony was performed―marriages in Wales. By the 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 22, s. 23, provision is made for an authentic translation of the form of words given in the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 20 (ante), into the Welsh tongue.

Proof of valid marriage-proof that valid ceremony was performed―marriages abroad. The general principle with regard to marriages contracted in a foreign country, so far as forms are concerned, is, that, if contracted according to a form which would constitute a valid marriage in the place where it is celebrated, it is a valid marriage here. Per Lord Robertson, in Ferguson on Marriage and Divorce, p. 397; Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, chap. 7; Brook v. Brook, 3 Sm. & Giff, 481.

1

*Another general rule is, that a marriage contracted accord[*331 ing to a form which would not constitute a valid marriage in the country where it was celebrated is invalid. But there are to this rule certain exceptions, which are thus stated by Mr. Bishop, in the work already alluded to, ss. 134 and 99. 1. Where parties are sojourning in a foreign country, where the local law makes it impossible for them to contract a lawful marriage under it. See acc. Lord Cloncurry's case, Cruise on Dignities, 276, per Lord Eldon; where a marriage, celebrated at Rome by a Protestant clergyman between two Protestants, was held valid, because a witness swore that, at Rome, two Protestants could not marry according to the lex loci. See also R. v. Mellis, 10 Cl. & F. 534, per Lord Campbell. 2. Where by the law of the country in which the parties are sojourning a mode of marriage is recognized as valid for the sojourners differing from that which is prescribed for citizens. See per Lord Stowell, in Ruding v. Smith, 2 Hagg. Cons. R. 371, 384. This is only an apparent exception. 3. Where the parties to the marriage belong to an invading army, and they are married according to the forms of the country to which the invading army belongs. Ruding v. Smith, supra.

11 Wheel. C. C. 117. The validity of a marriage is to be determined by the law of the place where it was celebrated; if valid there, it is valid everywhere. Phillips v. Gregg, 10 W. 158; Dumarsely v. Fishly, 3 Marsh. 368; Medway v. Needham, 16 Mass. 167. In those of the United States, where there are no marriage acts, consent alone by words de præsenti or by the words de futuro, followed by a cohabitation, makes a valid marriage. Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48; Londonderry v. Chester, 2 N. H. 267, 268; Cheseldine v. Brewer, 1 H. & McH. 152; Fenton v. Reed, 4 Johns. 22; Benton v. Benton, 1 Day, 111; Haate v. Sealy, 6 Binn. 405; Dumarsely v. Fishly, 3 Marsh. 368. The defendant's confession is evidence. See Commonwealth v. Murtagh, 1 Ash. 272; Forney v. Hallacher, 8 S. & R. 159; Cayford's Case, 7 Greenl. 57. Contra, Commonwealth v. Littlejohn, 15 Mass. 163. S.

Proof of valid marriage-proof that valid ceremony was performed-marriages in colonies. Colonists carry with them so much of the common law, and of the statute law in existence at the time of their formation, as is applicable to their situation. Clark on Col. Law, p. 8; Black. Com. 108. And it appears that the marriage law is included in this. Lautour v. Teasdale, 8 Taunt. 830, 4 E. C. L. If the colonial law has been modified, either by the supreme or colonial legislature, this modification must, of course, be attended to. Marriages in Newfoundland are regulated by the 5 Geo. 4, c. 68, repealing 57 Geo. 3, c. 51. Marriages in the Ionian Islands by the 23 & 24 Vict.

c. 86.

Proof of valid marriage-proof that valid ceremony was performed-marriages in Scotland. These are subject to the same general considerations as marriages abroad; i. e., the lex loci must be looked

to.

But by s. 1 of the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 96, "after the 31st of December, 1856, no irregular marriage contracted in Scotland by declaration, acknowledgment, or ceremony, shall be valid, unless one of the parties had at the date thereof his or her usual place of residence there, or had lived in Scotland for twenty-one days next preceding such marriage; any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

Proof of valid marriage-proof that valid ceremony was performed-marriages in Ireland. These are subject also to the same general considerations as marriages abroad. It seems not to have been formerly essential to the validity of marriage in Ireland that the ceremony should take place in a church. Where it had been performed by a dissenting minister in a private room, the recorder was clearly of opinion that it was valid, on the ground that, as before the Marriage Act a marriage might have been celebrated in England in a house, and it was only necessary by positive law to celebrate it in a church, some law should be shown requiring dissenters to be married in a church; whereas one of the Irish statutes, 21 & 22 Geo. 3, c. 25, enacts, that all marriages between Protestant dissenters, celebrated by a Protestant dissenting teacher, shall be good, without saying at what *place they shall be celebrated. Anon. O. B. coram Sir J. *332] Silvester, 3 Russ. Cri. 307, 5th ed. So where a marriage was celebrated at a private house in Ireland by a clergyman of the Church of England, the curate of the parish, Best, C. J., held it to be valid. He said, "When I find that this marriage was performed by a gentleman who had officiated as curate of the parish for eighteen years, I must presume it to have been correctly performed according to the laws of that country, and I shall not put the defendant [it was an action in which coverture was pleaded] to the production of a licence, or to any further proof. It is true that in a case for bigamy, tried before Mr. Justice Bayley, on the northern circuit, an acquittal was directed, because the first marriage, which took place in Ireland, was performed in a private house; but I have reason to know that that learned judge

altered his opinion afterwards, and was satisfied of the validity of the first marriage." Smith v. Maxwell, Ry, & Moo. N. P. C. 80. The case referred to by Best, C. J., appears to be that of R. v. Reilly, 3 Chetw. Burn. 726, in which there was no direct evidence that the law of Ireland permitted a marriage to be celebrated at a private house. In Ireland, the marriage of two Roman Catholics by a Roman Catholic priest is good. Where a person who had a wife living at the time of the second marriage declared himself to be a Roman Catholic, and the woman was a Roman Catholic, Alderson, B., held that this was a good marriage as against him, and that he would not, on being indicted for bigamy, in respect of such second marriage, be allowed to set up, as a defence to the charge, that he was a Protestant. To prove the second marriage the second wife was called, who stated that A. acted as a Roman Catholic priest, and that the marriage took place in his house, as was usual with the marriages of Roman Catholics in Ireland; that before the commencement of the marriage service, the priest asked the prisoner if he was a Roman Catholic, and he answered that he was; that a part of the ceremony was in Latin, and the remainder in English, and that the priest having asked the prisoner if he would take the witness as his wife, and having asked her if she would take the prisoner for her husband, and each having answered in the affirmative, he pronounced them married. Held, that the marriage was sufficiently proved. R. v. Orgill, 9 C. & P. 80, 38 E. C. L. Where the first marriage was in Ireland, and it appeared that one of the parties was under age, and no consent of parents was proved, the judges, after referring to the Irish Marriage Act, 9 Geo. 2, c. 11, were of opinion, that though that Act has words to make such a marriage void, yet other parts of the statute show that it is voidable only, and any proceedings to avoid it must be taken within a year; and they therefore held the first marriage binding. R. v. Jacob, 1 Moody, C. C. 140.

The 5 & 6 Vict. c. 113, and the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 39, were passed to confirm marriages by Protestant and other dissenting ministers.

Marriages in Ireland are now regulated by the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81, altered and amended by the 26 Vict. c. 27. See also 26 & 27 Vict. c. 90. The 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81 (which was passed in consequence of the case of R. v. Millis, 10 C. & F. 534, in which the question was, as to the validity of a present contract of marriage performed by a Presbyterian minister) is similar to the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85 (ante, p. 329), which relates to England. It specially provides for marriages in Ireland between parties, one or both of whom are Presbyterians, permitting such marriages to be solemnized in certified meeting*houses. It allows the celebration of marriage, under certain forms and regulations, to take place in registered buildings, [*333 and before the registrar at his office. By s. 3, however, it is enacted, "that nothing in this Act contained shall affect any marriages by any Roman Catholic priest which may now be lawfully celebrated, nor extend to the registration of any Roman Catholic chapel, but such marriages may continue to be celebrated in the same manner, and subject