which came" through this means. Yet the reformers "triumphed, and in 1658 it was ordered, that henceforth the mere publication of bans should not justify cohabitation."[808] The custom of bundling was, however, too tenacious to be stopped by a decree of the legislator. For more than a century in New York it continued to flourish, and sometimes to bear evil fruit, as is clearly revealed in the case of Seger _v._ Slingerland, which was decided in 1804.[809] Another action shows that forty years later the practice existed in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. In this instance the plaintiff admits that "the custom in courtship which he has denominated bundling" prevails "very generally" in the part of the country where the interested persons reside; and in this suit, as in the New York case, the defendant won on appeal because of the connivance of the parents in the misconduct of their daughter.[810] [Footnote 807: BRODHEAD, _Hist. of the State of N. Y._, I, 639. For the text of the ordinance of Jan. 15, 1658, see _N. Y. Col. MSS._, XVI, 40, 129; also O'CALLAGHAN, _op. cit._, 328, 329; and _Law Reports_, X (1885), 729 (Lauderdale Peerage Case).] [Footnote 808: VALENTINE, _Manual of the Corporation_, 1858, 497, 498; _cf._ also LAMB, _History of the City of N. Y._, I, 183.] [Footnote 809: CAINE, _Reports_, II, 219, 220. This was a case on appeal by the original defendant who had been sued for damage for debauching the plaintiff's daughter. The defendant won on the ground of connivance of the parents of the girl. "We lay out of view," says the court, "the custom which it is agreed prevails in that part of the country for young people, who are courting, to sleep together." "Nor is it an excuse for the parent to say that promises of marriage had been exchanged." _Cf._ also STILES, _Origin and Hist. of Bundling_, 44 ff., 109-11.] [Footnote 810: Case of Hollis _v._ Wells (1845), 3 _Pa. Law Journal_ (Philadelphia, 1872), 29-33. Under head of "A Custom Must be Moral," these two cases are discussed in LAWSON (J. D.), _The Law of Usages and Customs_ (St. Louis, 1881), 58-60.] According to the old Dutch law, enforced in New Netherland, all persons desiring to form a valid union were required to appear before the minister or the court, as they saw fit, in the place where they had "their fixed domicil for the last year and day, and to apply there, for three Sundays or market days, when publication of the banns was to be made in the church or the court-house, or other place where the court of justice was held; and every one who had any impediment to propose, was obliged to state the same in the mean time, on pain of being otherwise deprived of that right."[811] [Footnote 811: O'CALLAGHAN, _Names of Persons for Whom Marriage Licenses Were Issued_, p. iii.]