Love stories; New York (N.Y.) -- Fiction; Scotland -- Fiction
By this time Joy and Judith were close together, holding hands.
Insensibly the girl drew her Aunt over to where Athlyne was standing
and took him by the arm. He raised his other hand and with it covered
the hand that lay on his arm, pressing it closer as he listened
attentively to the Sheriff’s expounding of the law:
“I gather that I did not express myself clearly when a short time ago
I spoke of the Scottish marriage laws. Let me now be more precise. And
as I am trying to put into words understandable by all a somewhat
complex subject I shall ask that no one present will make any remark
whatever till this part of my task has been completed. I shall then
answer to the best of my power any question or questions which any of
you may choose to ask me.
“Let me begin by assuring you all that what in Scottish law we call an
‘irregular’ marriage is equally binding in every way with a ‘regular’
marriage; the word only refers to form or method, and in no wise to
the antecedents or to the result. In our law ‘Mutual Consent’
constitutes marriage. You will observe that I speak of marriage--not
the proof of it. Proof is quite a different matter; and as it is
formally to be certified by a Court it is naturally hedged in by
formalities. This consent, whether proved or not, whether before
witnesses or not, should of course be followed by co-habitation; but
even this is not necessary. The dictum of Scots’ law is ‘_Concensus
non concubitus facit matrimonium_.’ But I have a shrewd suspicion that
the mind of the Court is helped to a declaration of validity when
_concensus_ has been followed by _concubitus_.
“Now let us take the present case and examine it as though testing it
in a Court of Law; for such is the true means to be exact. This man
and woman--we don’t know ‘gentleman’ and ‘lady’ in the Law--declared
in the presence of witnesses that they were man and wife. That is, the
man declared to the police sergeant at Dalry that the woman was his
wife; and the woman declared timeously to the police officer who made
the arrest that the man was her husband. These two statements,
properly set out, would in themselves be evidence not only of inferred
consent by declaration _de præsenti_ but of the same thing by ‘habit
and repute.’ The law has been thus stated:
“‘It may be held that a man and a woman, by living together and
holding themselves out as married persons, have sufficiently declared
their matrimonial consent; and in that case they will be declared to
be married although no specific promise of marriage or of _de
præsenti_ acknowledgement has been proved.’
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account