Marriages celebrated in churches and chapels erected since the mar riage Act, 26 Geo. 2, c. 33. this marriage was proved by the registrar, who produced the certificate; it was objected that there was no proof of the second marriage, or that it was invalid, having taken place in an unlicensed chapel; but Wightman, J., overruled the objections. (k) A marriage celebrated by banns, in a chapel erected after the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, was passed, and not upon the site of any ancient church or chapel, was held to be void, although marriages had been de facto frequently celebrated there; the words of the statute 'in which chapel banns have been usually published' being held clearly to mean chapels existing at the time it was passed. (1) But as soon as this determination was known, the 21 Geo. 3, c. 53, was 'passed, making valid all marriages which had been celebrated in any parish church or public chapel, erected since the passing of the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, and consecrated, and providing that the registers of such marriages should be received as evidence. The fourth section enacted, that the registers of marriages thereby made valid should, within twenty days after the 1st of August, 1781, be removed to the church of the parish in which such chapel should be situated; or, if it should be situated in an extra-parochial place, to the parish church next adjoining, to be kept with the registers of such parish. These provisions were extended by the 44 Geo. 3, c. 77, and the 48 Geo. 3, c. 127, to marriages celebrated in such chapels before the 23rd August, 1808; and the registers of such marriages are in like manner to be removed to parish churches, and transmitted to the bishop. The 6 Geo. 4, c. 92, recites, that since the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, and the 44 Geo. 3, c. 77, divers churches and chapels had been erected in England, Wales, and Berwickupon-Tweed, which had been duly consecrated, and divers marriages had been solemnized therein since the passing of the 44 Geo. 3, c. 77; but by reason that in such churches and chapels banns of matrimony had not usually been published, before or at the time of passing the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, nor any authority obtained for solemnizing marriages therein, under the provisions of the 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, such marriages had been or might be deemed to be void; and then enacts, that all marriages already solemnized in any church or public chapel in England, Wales, and Berwickupon-Tweed, erected since the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, and consecrated, shall be as good and valid in law as if such marriages had been solemnized in parish churches or public chapels, having chapelries annexed, and wherein banns had usually been published before or at the time of passing the 26 Geo. 2. By sec. 2, it shall be lawful for marriages to be in future solemnized in all churches and chapels erected since the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, and consecrated, 'in which churches and chapels it has been customary and usual, proof that the building was licensed by forming the service was not guilty of the (k) Reg. v. Tilson, 1 F. & F. 54. before the passing of this Act, to solemnize marriages; and that all marriages hereinafter (m) solemnized therein shall be as good and valid as if they had been solemnized in parish churches, &c., wherein banns had usually been published before or at the time of passing the 26 Geo. 2. And the registers of marriages solemnized in the churches or chapels, by the 6 Geo. 4, enacted to be valid in law, or copies thereof, are to be received as evidence, in the same manner as the registers of marriages in parish churches, &c., in which banns were usually published before or at the time of the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, or copies thereof, are received; but liable to the same objections as would be available to exclude the latter from being received. (n) But such registers of marriages, solemnized in any public chapel, and made valid by the 6 Geo. 4, c. 92, are, within three months from the passing of the Act, to be removed to the parish church of the parish in which such chapel is situated; and if it be situated in an extra-parochial place, then to the parish church next adjoining, to be kept with the marriage registers of such parish, and in like manner as parish registers are directed to be kept by the 26 Geo. 2. (0) c. 33. Where a marriage was solemnized in a chapel, before the Evidence of 6 Geo. 4, c. 92, there must be some evidence given that banns banns before were usually published there before the passing of the 26 the 26 Geo. 2, Geo. 2, c. 33; but it was primâ facie sufficient for that purpose to produce an old register of marriages solemnized in the chapel before that Act, and a regular register of banns published there since, and to prove that within the recollection of witnesses banns had been published and marriages solemnized in it from time to time of late years. (p) But where on an indictment for bigamy it appeared that the first marriage was celebrated at the chapel of Great Barr, which was a chapel in the parish of Aldridge, in the year 1843, and that marriages had been solemnized there for the last twenty years, but no register was produced, nor any further evidence given as to the celebration of marriages or publication of banns there; Platt, B., held the evidence insufficient, as it was necessary to show either that the chapel was one in which banns had been usually published before the 26 Geo. 3, c. 33, or that the chapel was built and consecrated after that Act, and before the 6 Geo. 4, c. 92. (q) churches, &c. By the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37, s. 15, an Act to make better pro- Marriages in vision for the spiritual care of popular parishes, where any church district or chapel has been consecrated as the church or chapel of any district constituted under the Act, such district is to be a new parish for ecclesiastical purposes, and 'it shall be lawful to publish banns of matrimony in such church, and according to the laws and canons in force in this realm to solemnize therein marriages;' and the several laws relating to the publication of banns and the performance of marriages and the registering thereof, shall apply to the church of such new parish, and to the perpetual curate (m) Sic, it should be 'hereafter.' (n) 6 Geo. 4, c. 92, s. 3. (0) Id. sec. 4. (p) Taunton v. Wyvorn, 2 Campb. R. 297. This case was tried in 1809, after the passing of the 26 Geo. 3, and before the 6 Geo. 4, c. 92. (q) Reg. v. Bowen, 2 C. & K. 227, tried March 18, 1846. The 6 Geo. 4, c. 92, received the Royal Assent 5th July, 1825. Marriages in rendered valid. thereof. And by the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70, s. 10, an Act for amending the Church building Acts, banns of marriage may be published and marriages performed in the church of every consolidated chapelry formed in the manner therein mentioned. The 7 & 8 Vict. c. 56, s. 3, reciting that by error banns have certain chapels been published and marriages solemnized in chapels with districts assigned to them under the 59 Geo. 3, c. 134, 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 38, 1 & 2 Vict. c. 107, and 3 & 4 Vict. c. 60, or some of them, but in which. chapels bauns could not be legally published nor marriages by law be solemnized, enacts that 'banns already (29th July, 1844) published and marriages already solemnized in such chapels as aforesaid shall not hereafter be questioned on account of the said banns having been published, or the said marriages solemnized in any such chapel as aforesaid, and the registers of all marriages so solemnized as aforesaid, or copies of such registers, shall be received in all courts of law and equity as evidence of such marriages respectively.' () The 14 & 15 Vict. c. 97, s. 25, (r) enacts that, where by error and without fraud banns had been published or marriages solemnized, in the church of any parish or district in which they could not lawfully be published or solemnized, the banns already (7th August, 1851) published and marriages already solemnized, shall not be questioned by reason thereof, except where some suit was pending. The 24 & 25 Vict. c. 16, s. 4, renders valid all banns published and all marriages solemnized before the 17th of May, 1861, in churches and chapels which had been duly consecrated, but in which banns could not legally be published nor marriages by law be solemnized; but the Act is not prospective. (8) The 18 & 19 Vict. c. 81, s. 13, renders valid marriages had before the 30th July, 1855, in any building registered under the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, but not certified as required by any Act. (r) Sec. 1 provides that where a district has been or shall be assigned to any church or chapel under the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 60, the Church Building Commissioners or the bishop may determine as to banns and marriages in any such church or chapel; and sec. 2 enacts that when and so soon as it shall be determined that banns of matrimony may be published and marriages solemnized in any such church or chapel, the bishop of the diocese within which such church or chapel shall be locally situated, whether in any parish or extra-parochial place, or otherwise, shall certify the same, and such certificate shall be kept in the chest of the church or chapel with the books of registry thereof, and a copy thereof shall be entered in the books of the Registry of Banns and Marriages, and a duplicate of such certificate shall be registered in the registry of the diocese, and such certificate shall be deemed and taken to be conclusive evidence in all courts, and in all questions relating to any banns published or marriages solemnized in any such church or chapel, that the same might according to law respectively be published and solemnized in such church or chapel, and that all banns published and marriages solemnized in any such church or chapel according to the laws and canons in force within this realm in that behalf shall, after the granting of such certificate, be good to all intents and purposes whatsoever provided always, that no banns or marriages respectively published or solemnized according to the laws and canons in force within the realm in that behalf in any church or chapel in which the same are authorized to be respectively published, solemnized, and had by the said recited Acts or this Act, or either of them, shall be invalid by reason of any such certificate not having been duly given, or registered or entered, as hereinbefore required. (rr) See 38 & 39 Vict. c. 66. (s) The Act also indemnifies ministers who had solemnized any marriages in such churches and chapels, and makes the registers and copies of them admissible in evidence. Marriages in chapels, erected and consecrated since 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, were rendered valid by various other retrospective statutes; see 21 Geo. 3, c. 53; 44 Geo. 3, c. 77; 48 Geo. 3, c. 127; and see 6 Geo. 4, c. 92, noticed ante, p. 302. With respect The 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, and 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, only extend to that part of the United Kingdom called England. (t) to marriages in Scotland, though the point was formerly much doubted, (u) it appears to have been afterwards settled that where minors domiciled in England withdrew themselves into Scotland, or places beyond the seas, for the purpose of evading the Marriage Act, their marriage under such circumstances was nevertheless valid. (v) In one case, a writer to the signet proved that, according to the law of Scotland, marriage is a civil contract solemnly and deliberately entered into, and as if the parties had a serious intention of living together as man and wife. The assent of both parties must, therefore, be very distinctly and clearly proved to have been given, in order to render the contract a valid one. It is not necessary to the validity of such contract, that the parties should afterwards live together as man and wife; but the fact of their afterwards living together as man and wife will operate to explain ambiguous words, if there be such, in the contract itself. Where, therefore, the second marriage took place at Gretna Green, and upon the whole evidence the assent of the second wife was not distinctly and clearly proved,' and, though the parties had lived together afterwards, the evidence tended rather to show that they were living together in a state of concubinage, inasmuch as the prisoner still continued to address her by her maiden name, Alderson, B., directed the jury to find the prisoner not guilty. (w) And where, on an indictment for bigamy, to prove the second marriage in Scotland, a witness stated that she (being the sister of the second wife) was present at a ceremony performed by a minister of a congregation, but whether of the Kirk she did not know, in her private house in Edinburgh; that she herself was married in the same way, and that parties were always married in Scotland in private houses; that the prisoner and her sister lived together in her house as man and wife for a few days after the ceremony; and the jury found the prisoner guilty; upon the question being reserved whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict, or whether some witness, conversant with the law of Scotland, should not have been called upon to say whether the facts proved constituted a valid marriage according to that law; it was held that some such witness ought to have been called, and that, even supposing that the witness had been a competent witness for such a matter, her evidence did not prove a marriage in fact. (x) (t) See ante, pp. 278, 286. (u) See Burn's Just. tit. Marriage, and the observations of Lord Mansfield in Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1079. (v) Crompton v. Bearcroft, Bull, N. P. 113; and see the opinion of Eyre, C. J., in reasoning upon the case of Phillips v. Hunter, 2 H. Blac. 412. And in Ilderton v. Ilderton, 2 H. Blac. 145, it was taken to be clear that a marriage, celebrated in Scotland, is such a marriage as would entitle the woman to her dower in England. (u) Graham's case, 2 Lew. 97. In the same case the same learned judge refused to admit the certificate as evidence of the marriage. VOL. III. () Reg. v. Povey, Dears. C. C. 32. 22 L. J. M. C. 19. The Court said that the Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Cl. & F. 85, had settled the point that a person not peritus virtute officii or virtute professionis, was inadmissible to prove the law of a foreign country, and had overruled Reg. v. Dent, 1 C. & K. 97; as to this see post, Evidence. See Lapsley v. Grierson, 1 H. L. C. 498, that illicit cohabitation in Scotland begun in the lifetime of a husband, and continued after his death, continues to bear an illicit character, unless there be a clear change in its characterafter the death of the husband is known to the parties. X Marriages in Scotland and places beyond the seas good, if performed according to customs of the country in which they the rites and were cele brated. Marriage in Marriage by a clergyman of the Church of England in a private house in Ireland. By the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 96, s. 1, after the 31st of December, 1856, no irregular marriage contracted in Scotland by declaration, acknowledgement, 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, custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. Where a soldier on service with the British army in St. Domingo, in 1796, being desirous of marrying the widow of another soldier who had died there in the service, the parties went to a chapel in the town, and the ceremony was there performed by a person appearing and officiating as a priest; the service being in French, but interpreted into English by a person who officiated as clerk, and understood at the time by the woman to be the marriage service of the Church of England. This was held sufficient evidence, after eleven years' cohabitation, that the marriage was properly celebrated, although the woman stated that she did not know that the person officiating was a priest. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., in delivering his opinion, considered the case, first, as a marriage celebrated in a place where the law of England prevailed (supposing, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the law of England, ecclesiastical and civil, was recognized by subjects of England in a place occupied by the king's troops, who would impliedly carry that law with them), and held that it would be a good marriage by that law: for it would have been a good marriage in this country before the Marriage Act, and consequently would be so now in a foreign colony, to which that Act does not extend. In the second place, he considered it upon the supposition that the law of England had not been carried to St. Domingo by the king's forces, nor was obligatory upon them in this particular; and held that the facts stated would be evidence of a good marriage according to the law of that country, whatever it might be; and that upon such facts every presumption was to be made in favour of the validity of the marriage. (y) Where (before the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81, post, p. 308) a person was married at her father's house, in Ireland, in 1799, in the presence of the friends of both families, by a clergyman of the Church of England, who had been curate of the parish for eighteen years; the parish church was standing, but persons of respectability were usually married at their own houses; the parties lived together for several years following as man and wife. Upon objection to the validity of this marriage, Best, C. J., said, I know of no law which says that celebration in a church is essential to the validity of a marriage in Ireland. The English Marriage Act does not apply, and I am aware of no Irish law which takes marriages performed in that country out of the rules which prevailed in this before the passing of that Act. Dalrymple v. Dalrymple () has placed it beyond a doubt that a marriage so celebrated as this has been would have been held valid in this country before the existence of that statute. () So where in support of a plea of coverture it was proved that Mrs. Quicke married Mr. Quicke at the house of the (y) Rex v. Brampton, 10 East, 282. 80. (a) Smith v. Maxwell, R. & M. N. P. R. |