of full age, can proceed in this country for the nullity of such marriage by reason of such minority and want of consent, Lloyd v. Petitjean, 2 Curt. 251.

A marriage between foreigners not belonging to the suite, in a foreign Ambassador's chapel is not, it seems, exempt from the provisions of English law, Pertreis v. Tondear, 1 Hagg. C. 136.

A marriage purporting to have been had under authority of the Colonial Act of New South Wales, passed July 4th, 1834, is not invalid, by reason as of a non-compliance with its provisions, there are no words therein expressly creating a nullity. Quære, unless there be such words, whether any other words in a statute can impart one, Catterall v. Sweetman, 1 Rob. 304. In this case there was consent between the parties to become husband and wife. The decision was confirmed in a subsequent cause of Catterall v. Catterall, 1 Rob. 580.

A marriage celebrated at Palermo, according to the laws of Sicily, was held valid in Herbert v. Herbert, 2 Hagg. C. 263.

PROOF OF MARRIAGE.

Marriage is in this country a civil contract, differing from other contracts in being incapable of being cancelled by consent of the parties, and

its validity, therefore, depends on its conformity to law.

A marriage in Scotland must be proved to be valid according to Scottish law, by a witness skilled in that law, so far as regards marriages, Reg. v. Povey, Dears. 32; Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Clarke & Finnelly, 134. See Roscoe, Crim. Evid. 305.

A marriage in Ireland need not of necessity take place in a church, as, when performed by a dissenting minister between two dissenters, 1 Russ., by Grea. 214; even where celebrated by the curate of the parish in a private house, the production of the licence was not required, Smith v. Maxwell, Ry. & M. 80. Marriages in Ireland are now regulated by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81.

The validity of a Jewish marriage is to be tried by the laws of the Jews, as in the case of a foreign marriage, Lindo v. Belisario, 1 Hagg. Con. 216, Goldsmith v. Bromer, 1 Hagg. Con. 324. But if a Jewess be married after the Christian form, she submits to the restrictions of that form, and is bound by the consequences if she departs from them. And so of other persuasions, Jones v. Robinson, 2 Phill. 285.

Marriages of English subjects celebrated in the chapel of any British factory abroad, or in the house of any British subject residing at such factory, or celebrated within the British lines are valid, 4 Geo. 4, c. 91. See also Portreis v. Ton

dear, 1 Hagg. Con. 136, and Ruding v. Smith, 2 Hagg. Con. 371; or, celebrated before 22 & 23 Vict. c. 64, in the British chapel at Lisbon.

Colonial marriages are valid if celebrated according to English law, inasmuch as the Queen's troops and subjects on occupying a place impliedly take that law with them; and, inasmuch as the statute does not run there, the marriage will be valid if it would have been valid here before the Marriage Act, Ruding v. Smith, 2 Hagg. Con. 371; R. v. Brampton, 10 East. 282; Lautour v. Teesdale, 8 Taunt. 830. But the decisions of course do not apply where any colonial legislature has duly passed any act prescribing any particular mode of celebration. Where that is so, the same rules apply as in the case of a foreign marriage.

Since the passing of the Act for the better Preventing of Clandestine Marriages, 26 Geo. II., c. 33, by the 14th & 15th sections of which registration is made compulsory, the proper, though not the sole evidence, is the register-book, Steadman v. Powell, 1 Add. 65; see Woods v. Woods, 2 Curt. 522.

Where the marriage is proved by a person who was present at it, though merely as a spectator, who can also identify the parties, it is unnecessary to prove the registration, or license, or banns, Reg. v. Allison, Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 109. By the General Registration Act, 6 & 7 Will. IV.,

c. 86, s. 38, certified copies of entries in the registers required by that Act to be kept, purporting to be sealed or stamped with the seal of the General Register Office, are to be received in evidence of the birth, death, or marriage, to which they relate, without further or other proof of such entries, or their contents.

With respect to entries in parochial registers, kept previously to the passing of that Act, it seems that though an examined copy of the register is admissible, the return of the transcript of the register annually made to the bishop, under the 70th can., or an examined copy of it, is not admissible in evidence, unless the vicar of the parish be called to prove the loss of the original. Per Alderson, B., in Walker v. The Countess of Beauchamp, 6 C. & P. 552. But, in both cases, some proof must be given of the identity of the parties married, which may be given by other than the subscribing witnesses, and even (per Buller, J.) by some one not actually present at the wedding, Birt v. Barlow, 1 Doug. 171.

A marriage was proved by an examined copy of the register, and by a witness, who, having seen the original, swore to the hand-writing of the alleged husband, Sayer v. Glossop, 2 Exch. 409.

By 3 & 4 Vict. c. 92, s. 6, all non-parochial registers deposited in the General Register Office, by virtue of that Act shall be receivable in evidence. The books of the Fleet prison are not

evidence of marriage, Reed v. Passer, Peake, 303; Conran v. Lowe, 1 Lee, 639.

The declaration of a deceased clergyman was rejected as evidence of the marriage, Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Cl. & Finn. 85.

But actual proof of marriage is unnecessary, except in cases of bigamy and formerly of crim. con.

In all other cases, which is more to our purpose, it may be proved by circumstantial evidence, as cohabitation, reputation, public owning, and reception by friends, Mayo v. Brown, 1 Lee 271; Plunkett v. Sharpe, 1 Lee, 441.

Cohabitation creates a strong presumption of marriage where a woman's character is unblemished; because the law will not suppose a woman, whose character in general is virtuous, will live with a man as her husband who is not so, Conran v. Lowe, 1 Lee, 638; Leigh v. Leigh, MSS. But aliter, where the woman is of loose character, Ib. 639.

Where a marriage was proved by production of copy register, and the identity of the husband was proved by his handwriting; and, after that marriage, the husband was proved to have cohabited for some days with some person, and the woman during that time called herself his wife, and produced a copy of the register; this, with very slight evidence of her handwriting, was deemed sufficient, Cripps v. Cripps, 1 No. Ca. 530.