belong provided always, that no minister of religion who is not in holy orders of the united Church of England and Ireland shall under the provisions of this Act officiate in any church or chapel of the united Church of England and Ireland; but nothing in the reading or celebration of such service shall be held to supersede or invalidate any marriage so previously contracted, nor shall such reading or celebration be entered as a marriage among the marriages in the parish register: provided also, that at no marriage solemnized at the registry office of any district shall any religious service be used at such registry office."

Sec. 13. "When any marriage is intended to be solemnized between parties not of the Society of Friends commonly called Quakers, or not professing the Jewish religion, by license under the provisions of the before-recited Act of the third and fourth years of Her Majesty, chapter seventy-two, in a registered building situated in a district within which neither of the parties resides, it shall be lawful for the superintendent registrar to whom notice of such intended marriage shall have been given to grant to the party applying for the same a license for such marriage to be solemnized in the registered building stated in such notice; and every license and certificate granted in pursuance of this enactment shall be as valid and effectual to all intents and purposes as if the same had been granted by the superintendent registrar of the district in which the registered building wherein the marriage is intended to be solemnized is situated."

Sec. 14. "When a marriage is intended to be solemnized, *under the [*297 provisions of any of the before-recited Acts or of this Act, in the usual place of worship of the parties so intending marriage, or one of them, and such place of worship shall be a registered building situated out of the district of their, his, or her residence, it shall be lawful for the superintendent registrar or respective superintendent registrars to whom notice of such marriage shall have been given to grant to the party applying for the same a license or certificate, as the case may be, for such marriage to be solemnized in the registered building stated in such notice, provided such building be situated not more than two miles beyond the limits of the district in which the notice of such marriage has been given, and the party giving notice of such marriage shall, at the time of giving the same, state therein, in addition to the description of the building in which the marriage is to be solemnized, that it is the usual place of worship of one of the parties, and shall also state the name of the party whose usual place of worship it is; and every license and certificate granted in pursuance of this enactment shall be as valid and effectual, to all intents and purposes, as if the same had been granted by the superintendent registrar of the district in which the registered building wherein the marriage is intended to be solemnized is situated."(w)

Sec. 17. "After any marriage shall have been solemnized, under the authority of any of the said recited Acts or of this Act, it shall not be necessary in support of such marriage to give any proof of the actual dwelling or of the period of dwelling of either of the parties previous to the marriage within the district stated in any notice of marriage to be that of his or her residence, or of the consent to any marriage having been given by any person whose consent thereto is required by law, or that the registered building in which any marriage may have been solemnized had been certified according to law as a place of religious worship, or that such building was the usual place of worship of either of the parties, nor shall any evidence be given to prove the contrary in any suit or legal proceedings touching the validity of such marriage; and all marriages which heretofore have been or which hereafter may be had or solemnized, under the authority of any of the said recited Acts or of this Act, in any building or place of worship which has been registered pursuant to the provisions of the said Act passed in the sixth and seventh years his late Majesty King William the Fourth, chapter eighty-five, but which may not

of

(w) By sec. 15, the registrar-general may appoint registrars of marriages; and the appointments of registrars of marriages by superintendent registrars are to be subject to his approval. By sec. 16, the registrar of marriages may appoint a deputy, and where such registrar dies or ceases to hold the office, his deputy is to be registrar until a new registrar is appointed.

have been certified as required by law, shall be as valid in all respects as if such place of worship had been so certified."(x)

Sec. 21. "Any marriage according to the usages of the Society of Friends commonly called Quakers, or to the usages of persons professing the Jewish religion respectively, where the parties *thereto are both members of the said Society or 298*] both persons professing the Jewish religion respectively, may be solemnized by license (which license the superintendent registrar to whom notice of the intended marriage shall have been given is hereby authorized to grant, in the form or to the effect set forth in the said Schedule (C.) to this Act annexed), as effectually in all respects as if such marriage were solemnized after the issue of a certificate by such superintendent registrar in the manner provided by the said recited Acts or any of them; and the provisions in this present Act contained in relation to the solemn declaration to be made by the party intending marriage, and to the statement to be contained in the notice of such intended marriage that such marriage is intended to be celebrated by license, and to the notice to be given of any such intended marriage by license, and to the giving of certificates in the form or to the effect set forth in Schedule (B.) to this Act annexed, and to the fee and stamp to be paid for such license, shall be applicable in all respects to every such marriage to be solemnized by license according to the usages of the said Society or to the usages of persons professing the Jewish religion respectively."(y)

Sec. 23. " Every marriage solemnized under any of the said recited Acts or of this Act shall be good and cognizable in like manner as marriages before the passing of the first-recited Act according to the rites of the Church of England."(2)

The 20 & 21 Vict. c. 19, provides for the turning of certain extra-parochial places into parishes, and where any such place has a church or chapel of the Church of England within it, the bishop of the diocese may authorize the publication of banns and the solemnization of marriages by banns or license in it. (a) And all the provisions as to keeping of marriage registers are extended to such church or chapel.(b)

The 23 & 24 Vict. c. 24, renders marriages celebrated in any such church or chapel valid where both or either of the parties reside in such district, provided the banns are published in both districts where the parties reside in different districts.

The marriage Acts do not specify what shall be necessary to be observed in the publication of banns, or that the banns shall be published in the true names of the parties; but it must be understood as the clear intention of the legislature that the banns shall be published in the true names, because it requires that notice in writing shall be delivered to the minister of the true Christian names and surnames of the parties seven days before the publication; and, unless such notice be given, he is not obliged to publish the banns. But a publication in the name which the party has assumed, and by which he is known in the parish, appears to be sufficient, and would, indeed, be the proper publication where the party is not known by his real name. Thus, where a person, whose baptismal and surname was Abraham Langley, was married by banns by the name of George Smith, *299] having been known in the parish where he resided and was married by that name only from his first coming into the parish till his marriage, which was about three years, the marriage was held valid. (c) And a marriage by license, not in the party's real name, but in the name which he had assumed, because he

(x) By sec. 18, persons making false declarations, or giving false notices, or forbidding the granting of a certificate by falsely representing their consent to be required by law, are liable to the penalties of perjury. By sec. 19, in the case of fraudulent marriages, the guilty party is to forfeit all the property accruing from the marriage. By sec. 20, nothing in the Act is to alter the provisions of the existing Acts, except when they are at variance with this Act.

(y) By sec. 22, the registrar-general is to furnish marriage registrar books and forms to each certified secretary of a synagogue of British Jews.

(z) Sec. 24 recites the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 36, and enacts that the registrar-general shall allow searches, and give extracts from the returns of certified places of worship. By sec. 25, the Act does not extend to Scotland or Ireland.

had deserted, he being known by that name only in the place where he lodged and was married, and where he had resided sixteen weeks, was also held valid. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said, "If this name had been assumed for the purpose of fraud in order to enable the party to contract marriage, and to conceal himself from the party to whom he was about to be married, that would have been a fraud on the Marriage Act and the rights of marriage, and the Court would not have given effect to any such corrupt purpose. But where a name has been previously assumed, so as to have become the name which the party has acquired by reputation, that is, within the meaning of the Marriage Act, the party's true name.(d) Under the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, if there was a total variation of a name or names, that is, if the banns were published in a name or names totally different from those which the parties, or one of them, ever used, or by which they were ever known, the marriage in pursuance of that publication was invalid; and it was immaterial in such cases, whether the misdescription had arisen from accident or design, or whether such design were fraudulent or not. The pauper and her husband were married in 1817, by banns, by the names of Mary White and Joseph Betts. The husband had been baptized as the son of J. and M. Betts. M. Betts was the daughter of S. Wilson, and her husband having absconded shortly after their marriage, the pauper's husband was brought up by S. Wilson, and always called by the name of Wilson, and never called or known by any other name either before or after his marriage. The pauper was the daughter of J. and M. Hodgkinson, and was never called or known by any name except Hodgkinson till after her marriage, but in the register of her baptism she was described as "Mary, the daughter of S. White and his wife," which entry was believed to have been a mistake of the clergyman who baptized her. It was held that the marriage was void. Whether the husband was sufficiently designated by the name of Betts it was unnecessary to inquire, as the Court were clearly of opinion that the woman was never known by, and never used the surname of "White," so as tɔ make that, in any latitude of construction, "a true name" within the meaning of the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, s. 2.(e)

But under the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, if there were a partial variation of name only, as the alteration of a letter or letters, or the addition or suppression of one Christian name, or the names had been such as the parties had used, and been known by, at one time, and not at another; in such cases the publication might, or might not be void; the supposed misdescription might be explained, and it became a most important part of the inquiry, whether it was consistent with honesty of pose, or arose from a fraudulent intention.(ƒ)

pur

*But the words of the 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 22, are wholly different from those of the 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, s. 8, and it has been held that in order to [*300 invalidate a marriage under the 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 22, it must be contracted with a knowledge by both parties that no due publication of the banns has taken place. Where, therefore, J. C. told Susannah Spencer that he would see the banns properly published, and she took no steps in the matter, and he told her that they had been published, but procured the banns to be published in the name of Agnes Watts, which name she had never borne; and in performing the service, the clergyman applied to her the name of Agnes, till which time she believed she was about to be married by her own name, and she did not know, until after the marriage, that the banns had been published in a wrong name; it was held that the marriage was valid.(g) But where both the man and the woman were aware that the banns had been published in a manner to conceal the identity of one of them, it was held that the marriage was void.(h)

Edward Croxall Tongue, a minor, of the age of seventeen years, and Mary Ann

(d) Rex v. Burton-upon-Trent, 3 M. & S. 537.

(e) Rex v. Tibshelf, 1 B. & Ad. 190 (20 E. C. L. R.).

(f) Per Lord Tenterden, C. J., Ibid. See Sullivan v. Sullivan, 2 Hagg. C. R. 254; Franklin v. Nicholson, 3 M. & S. 261; 1 Phill. R. 147; Pougett v. Tomkins, 3 M. & S. 263; Mather v. Ney, 3 M. & S. 265.

(g) Rex v. Wroxton, 4 B. & Ad. 640 (24 E. C. L. R.); 1 N. & M. 712.

(h) Wiltshire v. Wiltshire, 3 Hagg. Ecc. R. 332.

Allen, a widow, of the age of thirty-five years, were married in 1833 by banns, which were published in the names of Edward Tongue, bachelor, and Mary Ann Allen, spinster; the entry in the register was in the same names and descriptions, and was signed Edward Tongue. The marriage was clandestine and without the knowledge or consent of the parents of Tongue, who was baptized by the names of Edward Croxall Tongue, and though known to some persons by the name of Croxall Tongue or Tongue only, was never known by the name of Edward Tongue. It was admitted that the woman was cognizant of the fraud and intended it; and it was held that as the entry in the register was, Edward Tongue and Mary Ann Allen were married by banns, it was impossible for him not to have known of the publication of the banns; and the signature of only one of his Christian names showed that he must have known that the banns had been published in that name only; and, therefore, he, with the woman, knowingly and wilfully intermarried without due publication of banns.(i)

One Wood was baptized and had always been known by the name of Bower Wood, and never by the name of John Wood, and his banns were published in the names of Margaret Midgley and John Wood; after the first publication the wife told Wood that the name John Wood was wrong. He said it was one of his names, though he had never been called by it; she asked him why he used the name John? He said it was for fear any of his relations should know of his marrying her. She wished him to use the name of Bower; he said he should be disinherited if he did; she asked him if the marriage would be legal under the *name of John; he said it would. It was a long time before she would *301] consent to being married to him in the name of John. She did so, because he said if she loved him she would marry him in that name, and would trust to him afterwards. On the 12th of April, 1852, they were married in the names of Margaret Midgley and John Wood. Cresswell, J. O., held that there was not a due publication of banns, as Wood was described in them as John Wood, and both parties were aware of this misdescription when the marriage was solemnized, and therefore the marriage was invalid.(k)

It seems that the assuming a fictitious name, upon the second marriage, will not prevent the offence from being complete. (1) And it was decided to be no ground of defence, that upon the second marriage (which was by banns) the parties passed by false Christian names when the banns were published, and when the marriage took place; and it was further holden that the prisoner, having written down the names for the publication of the banns, was precluded thereby from saying that the woman was not known by the name he delivered in, and that she was not rightly described by that name in the indictment. The indictment was against the pri soner for marrying Anna Timson whilst he had a wife living: the second marriage was by banns; and, it appeared that the prisoner wrote the note for the publication of the banns, in which the woman was called Anna, and that she was married by that name, but that her real name was Susannah. Upon a case reserved two questions were made: one, whether this marriage was not void, because there was no publication of banns by the woman's right name, and that, if the second marriage were void, it created no offence: and the other question was whether the charge of the prisoner's marrying Anna was proved. But the judges held, unanimously, that the second marriage was sufficient to constitute the offence; and that, after having called the woman "Anna" in the note he gave in for the publication of banns, it did not lie in the prisoner's mouth to say, that she was not known as well by the name of Anna as by that of Susannah, or that she was not rightly called by the name of Anna in the indictment.(m)

So where the prisoner contracted the second marriage in the maiden name of his

(i) Tongue v. Tongue, 1 Moore P. C. 90. There was also evidence that it was the regular course to make the parties examine the entry in the banns book before a marriage, and see that their names and descriptions were right, and the witness added that she should not have been present at the marriage as a witness, unless the banns had been regularly published.

(k) Midgley v. Wood, 30 Law J., D. & M. 57.

(1) Rex v. Allison, post, p. 317.

(m) Rex v. Edwards, MS. Bayley, J., and R. & R. 283.

mother, and the woman he married had also made use of her mother's maiden name, it was unanimously resolved by all the judges that the prisoner was rightly convicted.(n) So where the second wife had never gone or been known by the name of Thick, but had assumed it when the banns were published, that her neighbors might not know she was the person intended, it was held that the parties could not be allowed to evade the punishment for their offence, by contracting a concertedly invalid marriage.(0) But where it was proved, by a person present at the prisoner's second marriage, that the woman was married to him by the name of Hannah Wilkinson (the name laid in the indictment), but there was no other proof that the *woman was in fact Hannah Wilkinson; it was held that the proof was in[*302 sufficient, and that to make it sufficient, there should have been proof that the prisoner was married to a certain woman by the name of, and who called herself, H. Wilkinson, whereas, in fact, there was no proof that such was her name, or that she had ever before gone by that name: and if the banns had been published in a name which was not her own, and which she had never gone by, the marriage would be invalid.(p)

A marriage celebrated under a license, in which one of the parties is described by a name wholly different from his own, is not therefore void. George Rudman was taken into custody as the reputed father of a child, of which a woman was pregnant, and married her by license. He gave his name as George Neate at the times of the apprehension and marriage, and was named so in the license, but had never gone by that name before; and the Court of Queen's Bench held this marriage valid.(g)

Where a marriage was solemnized by license, in which the woman's name was Margaret Bevan; her baptismal name and that by which she was commonly called being "Margaret Lea Bevan": the license was obtained in the altered name by the man, who knowingly, and by direction of the woman, suppressed the name of Lea," and gave false places of residence, in order that the surrogate might not know who the woman was, and that the intended marriage might be kept secret from her friends; it was held that the question was whether the woman was married without a "license from a person or persons having authority to grant the same." There was no doubt that the person who granted the license had authority to grant it, and it came therefore to the question whether this was a license for the woman. It was clear that an altered name might represent a person; therefore the name "Margaret Bevan" might represent her, and as the license was obtained for her and by her direction from a person who had authority to grant it, the marriage was not void. (r)

On the trial of an ejectment in 1842, a marriage was said to have taken place in August, 1784, at a private house under a special license from the Archbishop of Canterbury. There was some evidence of cohabitation and reception; but the plaintiff's counsel offered in evidence an affidavit made for the purpose of obtaining a special license to be married at a private house, and a fiat signed by the Archbishop directing a license to be made out, as prayed, for a marriage between the parties; both which documents were produced from the Office of Faculties, the proper ecclesiastical office. No search had been made for the original license; and there was proof that such licenses were not kept in any regular custody, but were generally handed over to the officiating clergyman and not taken back from him. A copy of the register of the parish of St. Pancras, which stated the marriage to have been at a private house, by special license, and professed to be signed by the parties, was also offered in evidence. *Objection was taken to the fiat as [*303 being secondary evidence of the contents of the license, for which no search

(n) Palmer's case, 1 Deac. Dig. Cr. L. 147; Rosc. C. E. 280.

(0) Rex v. Penson, 5 C. & P. 412, Gurney, B. See Reg. v. Orgill, post, p. 314. (p) Drake's case, 1 Lewin 25, Park, J. No point was suggested as to this being the second marriage.

(9) Lane v. Goodwin, 4 Q. B. 361 (45 E. C. L. R.). But if a license were obtained for one person with the intention that it should be used for another, such a license might not be valid: Per Patteson, J., Ibid.

(r) Bevan v. M'Mahon, 30 Law J., D. & M. 61.

VOL. 1.-16