MARRIAGE AGENCIES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1536, 7 August 1901, Page 5

MARRIAGE AGENCIES.

DEFENDED BY A JUDGE.

In deciding a case in which George Hay claimed to be registered as a minister entitled to celebrate marriages, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales advanoed som© remarkable reasons the other day for the judgment they gave. Applicant asked for a mandamus directing the to register him, and the application was opposed by th© Crown, one of th© objections to the granting of the mandamus being that the applicant was not connected with any recognised denomination, and that he was in the habit of performing numerous marriages at marriage bureaus. Mr Justice Stephen, in the course of his judgment, said it was suggested that many marriages wer© celebrated at night at private houses, that the witnesses to these marriages were the same every time, and that this was affording food for th© Divorce Court. These institutions impressed on© as scarcely creditable, but he had to be careful not to let that press too closely upon him with, out evidence on the point. It was said that undue facility was, through these marriag© establishments, given to marriage ; but he did not know that it was altogether wrong to give facilities for marriage. God knows the Legislature had from time to time given facilities enough for marriage, and it seemed to him almost that it was politic to facilitate marriage, if one believed what one heard about the lowering of the birth rate. He did not see that it was wrong to give facilities for marriag© here. This facility to marry was a matter which might fairly be said to be sanctioned by th© Legislature, since the authorities knew of the state of affairs that existed, and did not put an end to it. It was to a certain extent a guarantee in favour of an institution of this sort that a clergyman, against whose character nothing could be said, attended and performed these ceremonies. There was no religious service provided for by the Act with regard to celebration of marriages, and bad as these places might be, there was a certain safeguard secured by th© presence of a minister of religion. His view'was that the applicant, having made out his right to be registered as a minister officiating as such, they should not say that the facts disclosed in the case with regard to the number of marriages h© had celebrated at these bureaus warranted them in exercising their discretion against him. Mr Justice G. B. Simpson believed that these marriage agencies should he suppressed ; but that was no legal reason why Mr Hay should b© deprived of his legal right to be registered as a minister for the celebration of marriages.

Mr Justice Cohen concurred in the view that the applicant had, prima facie, established his right to be registered as a minister ordinarily officiating as such. He had formed the opinion that these marriage agencies were not for the public benefit, and the Court, by granting a prerogative writ of mandamus, gave its sanction to the establishment of these marriage agencies all over the State. He therefore differed from the other Judges. The writ of mandamus was granted by the majority, with costs.