impregnated with noisome and offensive smells, which were proved to be noxious and hurtful to the health of the inhabitants, and to have made many of them sick,—was holden to be a nuisance. R. v. White and Ward, 1 Burr. 333. As to erecting privies near a highway, see R. v. Pedley, I Ad. & El. 822, infra; as to nuisances by gas works, see R. v. Medley et al., 6 Car. & P. 292; as to keeping a shooting ground near the highway, where persons came to shoot at targets, and at pigeons, &c., see R. v. Moore, 3 B. § Ad. 184. And the nuisance, to be indictable, must appear to be a public nuisance. Therefore where a tinman was indicted for carrying on his trade in the neighbourhood of Clifford's Inn, to the common nuisance, &c., and it was proved that the noise he made was a great annoyance to some attornies having chambers at No. 14, 15, and 16 in the inn, and prevented them attending to their business: Ld. Ellenborough, C. J., held that the evidence did not sustain the indictment, the nuisance proved being a private nuisance merely, R. v. Lloyd, 4 Esp. 200. So, where a person was indicted for erecting a coke oven, which threw out great quantities of smoke and vapour, which was proved to be offensive to the inhabitants of the houses in the neighbourhood, but it did not affect their health, or render their houses uninhabitable, or even lower the value of their houses: Heath, J., held that it was not a public nuisance. R. v. Davey et al., 5 Esp. 217. Where a man was indicted for carrying on an offensive trade, but it appeared that it had been carried on at the same place by the defendant, and previously by his father, for nearly fifty years: Ld. Kenyon, C. J., directed the jury to acquit him. R. v. Samuel Neville, Peake, 126, but see R. v. Cross, 3 Camp. 227. And where upon an indictment for this offence, it appeared that there had been other manufactories, which emitted disagreeable and noxious smells, carried on in the neighbourhood for many years, and that the defendant had come into the neighbourhood about four years before: Ld. Kenyon left it to the jury to say whether the noxious vapour was much increased by this addition of the defendant; and his lordship said,— "where manufactories have been borne with in a neighbourhood for many years, it will operate as a consent of the inhabitants to their being carried on, though the law might have considered them as nuisances, had they been objected to in time; but if another man comes, and by his manufacture renders that which was a little unpleasant before, very disagreeable and uncomfortable, though it would not amount to a nuisance by itself, still he is answerable for it." R. v. Bartholomew Neville, Peake, 125. This, however, as a general proposition, may very much be doubted; if a man erect a public nuisance near a highway, inasmuch as it is a nuisance to all the Queen's subjects, the consent of the inhabitants in its immediate neighbourhood cannot legalize it. This doctrine of Ld. Kenyon seems more applicable to private nuisances than to public ones. Where a man, after building some dwelling-houses, built necessary-houses near the highway to be used with them, and then let the houses; afterwards these necessary-houses, for want of cleansing, became a nuisance; but it did not appear clearly whether the necessary-houses had been let with the houses, or whether the tenants were under any contract to keep them cleansed, &c., or not: the court however held, that whether that was the case or not, the defendant was liable to this indictment; he made the erection, and the nuisance was the natural consequence of the erection; and Littledale, J., said, "if a nuisance be created, and a man purchase the premises with the nuisance upon them, though there be a demise for a term at the time of the purchase, so that the purchaser has no opportunity of removing the nuisance, yet by purchasing the reversion he makes himself liable for the nuisance; but if the nuisance be erected by the occupier after the reversion is purchased, the reversioner incurs no liability; yet in such a case, if there were only a tenancy from year to year, or any short period, and the landlord chose to renew the tenancy after the tenant had erected the nuisance, that would make the landlord liable; he is not to let the land with the nuisance upon it. R. v. Pedley, 1 Ad. & El. 822. Where a man was indicted for a nuisance in having refused and neglected to bury the dead body of his child, and by reason of the decomposition thereof divers noisome stenches arose, and the air was greatly infected and rendered unwholesome, to the common nuisance, &c.; it appeared that the defendant was a pauper, and upon the death of his child he applied to the parish officers for money to bury it, who offered to let him have it on loan (being the only mode in which they are permitted to afford such relief,) but this he refused, and carried the body from his house to a yard in the neighbourhood, where it became a nuisance as stated in the indictment; being convicted, and the case reserved for the opinion of the criminal appeal court, that court held that although a man is bound to provide christian burial for his deceased child, if he be able to do so, yet he is not bound to incur a debt for that purpose; and as the jury were not desired to consider and say whether the defendant was of ability to bury the child without incurring the debt, he ought not to have been convicted. R. v. Vann, 21 Law J. 39 m. SECTION VII. Bigamy. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present, that A. B., on the day of to wit. in the year of our Lord- did marry one C. D., and her the said C. D. then had for his wife; and that the said A. B., being so married to the said C., as aforesaid, afterwards and during the life of the said C., his wife, to wit, on ——, feloniously did marry one E. F., the said C., his former wife, being then alive, as aforesaid: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [As to the venue, see ante, p. 74. Where the indictment charged the prisoner with marrying" Elizabeth Chant, widow," his former wife being alive; and it appeared that Elizabeth Chant was at the time in fact and by reputation a single woman: the judges held the misdescription to be fatal, although it was not necessary to have stated more than the name of the party. R. v. Deeby, Ry. & M. 303, 4 Car. & P. 579. But it seems that this might now be amended by stat. 14 § 15 Viet c. 100, s. 1, ante, p. 100. Felony; transportation for seven years;—or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for not more than two years. 9 G. 4, c. 31, s. 22. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove- 1 The first and second marriages, as stated in the indict ment. A marriage in a protestant church, is by licence or banus, or by a certificate from a superintendent-registrar of marriages. By licence, each party should be of the age of twenty-one, otherwise, he or she (if not a widower or a widow) should have the consent of his or her father, or (if dead) of the guardian, or (if no guardian) of the mother unmarried, or (if no mother unmarried) of a guardian appointed by the court of chancery: 4 G. 4, c. 76, ss. 14, 16; but since this latter statute, the want of such consent does not render the marriage void. R. v. Birmingham, 8 B. & C. 29. It is required also that the parties should be previously resident in the R. parish for fifteen days; 4 G. 4. c. 76, s. 10; but such residence is not essential to the validity of the marriage. Id. s. 16. And if the licence be granted to the parties by the names by which they are usually known, the marriage will be valid, although those be not their real names. R. v. Burton upon Trent, 3 M. & S. 537. Lane v. Goodwin, 12 Law J. 157, qb. Persons of any age may be married by banns; and it is no objection to the validity of the marriage, that the parties had not been previously resident in the parish. 4 G. 4, c. 76, s. 26. R. v. Hind, R. & Ry. 253. If the banns be in the names by which the parties are usually known, the marriage will be valid; R. v. Billinghurst, 3 M. & S. 250. v. St. Faith's, Newton, 3 D. & Ry. 348; or if the banns name one of the parties falsely, yet unless both parties had a knowledge of it, the marriage will be valid; R. v. Wroxton, 4 B. & Ad. 640; but a marriage by banns in a false name, or in a name by which the party was never known or called by, although it be the name in the register of his or her baptism, if this fact were known to both parties, the marriage would be invalid. R. v. Tibshelf, 1 B. & Ad. 190. But where the man, in the note for the publication of the banns, named the woman, Anna Timson (her name being Susanna), and she was married and signed the register as Anna, the judges held that as he had written the name Anna in the note for the publication of banns, and signed the register which so described her, he should not be permitted to defend himself on the ground of his not having married Anna Timson, although such might not be her real name. R. v. Edwards, R. & Ry. 283. Or instead of banns or licence, the parties may be married, on production of a certificate from a superintendent-registrar of marriages. 6 § 7 W. 4, c. 85, ss. 1, 16. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 72, 8. 1. A marriage in a protestant chapel, is by licence or banns, in the same manner as in a church; but if in a chapel erected since the passing of stat. 6 G. 4, c. 92, or indeed in a church built in a new district since that time (that statute having legalized all marriages in churches or chapels up to the time of the passing of it), it must also be proved that the bishop of the diocese has authorized the publication of banns and celebration of marriages there. See R. v. Bowen, 2 Car. & K. 227; and stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 85, ss. 26—34; 7 § 8 Vict. c. 56. A marriage in a chapel of dissenters of any denomination (registered for the solemnization of marriages, by the registrargeneral, 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 85, 8. 18) by licence or certificate from a superintendent-registrar, is good and valid; Id. 88. 11, 17, 36; and it is not necessary to the validity of the marriage, that the parties should have previously resided within the district. Id. s. 25. A marriage by the like licence or certificate, in the office of a superintendent-registrar of marriages, in his presence, and in the presence of some registrar of the district, and of two witnesses, with open doors, between the hours of eight and twelve in the forenoon, is also good and valid. 6 & 7 W., c. 85, 88. 20, 21. Marriages by Quakers or Jews, must now be by certificate from a superintendent-registrar of marriages; 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 85, 8. 4; but in every other respect Quakers and Jews may contract and solemnize marriage according to their respective usages, and such marriage is valid, provided both the parties be Quakers, or both parties Jews. Id. s. 2. And all marriages of Quakers or Jews before that Act, are declared to be valid by stat. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 58. A marriage in Scotland is a mere civil contract, which may be made and proved as all other contracts. And the contract may be either in writing or verbal: if for instance, the parties say, in the presence of a witness or witnesses, that they are man and wife, this is an admission of their marriage, and will be deemed sufficient proof of it. Where, in a suit in the ecclesiastical court in this country, for a restitution of conjugal rights, it was proved that the parties had entered into a mutual written promise to marry, and both afterwards signed a declaration and acknowledgment that they were husband and wife, which however was done privately between themselves, without the knowledge of any third person: this was holden to be a valid marriage, because it was so according to the law of Scotland. Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Haggard, 54. And the same is the law, although both parties be English. Crompton v. Bearcroft, Bul. N. P. 113. A marriage in a foreign country, if contracted or solemnized according to the law of such foreign country, is deemed a valid marriage here; it is valid or invalid in this country, according as it was valid or invalid by the law of the country in which it was contracted. Per Ld. Tenterden, C.J., in Lacon v. Higgins, 3 Stark. 178. And therefore where it was proved that certain formalities were required to the validity of a marriage by the law of a foreign country, and that some of those formalities were omitted to be observed upon the occasion of the marriage in question, Lord Tenterden, C. J., held the marriage to be void. Id. As to marriages in Ireland, see R. v. Jacobs, Ry. & M. 140; and as to marriages there by presbyterian or other dissenting ministers, see stat. 5 § 6 Vict. c. 113. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 39. Whilst the British army were in possession of St. Domingo, a British soldier was married to an English woman, in a chapel there, by a person habited as a priest; the ceremony was performed in the French language, was interpreted to them, and the woman afterwards, in giving evidence upon the subject, stated that |