THE FALSE PRIEST. By Irving Browne. IN looking over a very beautiful recent edi tion of " The Vicar of Wakefield," I was led to re-read some of the charming old story, and for the first time a suspicion dawned on me that " Goldy " was a little weak in his marriage law. Among " the odd little things " which the Squire employed Jenkinson to do for him, he commissioned him to procure " a false license and a false priest," in order to deceive Olivia by an appearance of a valid marriage; but the crafty Jenkinson procured " a true license and a true priest," and so the marriage was legal in spite of the bad Squire. It strikes me that Jenkinson went to unnecessary trouble and expense to "make an honest woman " of Olivia, for it seems that by the early English law the Squire would have been bound by the sham ceremony. Something however may depend on the period in which the author means to lay his scene. If before the enactment of Lord Hardwicke's marriage act, in 1753, I should say that the sham ceremony was probably binding. If afterward, it may be doubtful, fw that act pronounces void all marriages not celebrated in the presence of a person in holy orders. I use this guarded language because it is not entirely clear that at common law the presence of a person in holy orders was not essential to the validity of a marriage, and in such case the sham mar riage must be void unless the courts will refuse to entertain the fraudulent husband's contention on account of his infamy. It must be observed that the present ex amination is as to a sham and false priest, without color of clerical authority or stand ing, and not as to one who claims in good faith to be a priest, but of the regularity of whose office there is question made. There is a distinction recognized in favor of mar riages celebrated by persons of the latter class.
Although it is the popular belief, as evi denced in novels and plays, that a marriage ceremony imposed on an innocent woman through the medium of a false priest and a sham license, by the contrivance of the sup posed husband, does not bind the latter,1 yet it is remarkable that there does not appear to be a single case of a judicial investigation of the point in the books of reports on the elementary treatises. It is a reasonable presumption that when such exhaustive and researchful authors as Bishop and Schouler have not a word to say of mock marriages, it is because there is no law on the subject. In addition, my own researches have resulted in nothing very definite. There are cases approaching the point, and cases from which strong inferences may be drawn, but the exact point seems undecided. It must be conceded that by the ruling English authority of Queen v. Millis, 10 Clark & Finnelly, 641, it is technically set1 From the New York " Tribune " of a very recent date, I cut the following: — "About a year ago," says a Brooklyn clergyman, "a woman who had been deceived by her lover by means of a ' mock mar riage,' and who had discovered the fraud, came to me with her tale of woe and asked my advice. She was living with the man she supposed to be her husband, but believed that he was about to desert her. I thought the matter over, and told her to arrange a little party at her house and to invite me as a friend, but not as a minister of the gospel, and at an opportune time propose to the lover that they show their friends how they were married ' in fun.' She was a bright little woman, and carried out my instructions to the letter. The people in the house when 1 went there knew of the existing conditions, and readily entered into the scheme, prompted by curiosity to see how a ' mock marriage ' was per formed. I was pressed into service by the woman on the plea that I had a brother in the church. I took a Bible she provided, and married them fast, and made out the certificate in due form. Then I had an interview with the man. He was very angry at first, but came around all right; and he and the little woman are now living together very happily. That isn't the way most ' mock marriages ' end, but it would be a good way to do it." The clergyman and the newspaper seem equally at sea as to what constitutes a valid marriage in the State of New York. As no ceremony is there required, the first marriage was perfectly valid; but if it were not, the sec ond one was equally void and " mock."
