SECOND EDITION. THE MARRIAGE LAW

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160797, 3 November 1920, Page 9

SECOND EDITION. THE MARRIAGE LAW

FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD i CATHOLIC CERTIFICATE IN f QUESTION. , (By Telegraph—Special to “Herald”). ■ WELLINGTON, Nov. 2. The most important’ xeature of the fresh evidence taken by the Select Committee of the House of Representatives in connection with the Marriage Amendment Bill is the production by the Rev. Howard Elliott of documents relating to two- marriages of the same persona. He said' that they purport to be a certificate issued on the 20th June; 1308, of a marriage between Neal McLean and Ada Casey, and celebrated before James S. Bond, Registrar, while on* the 13th July, 1908, the" same parties were married in St. Martha’s Church, Hamilton, Dy Dean Dirty, and described in this certificate, a month*, later, as bachelor and spinster, “which,” he said, “is a practical confirmation of the statement made by me before the comnlittee of the Legislative Council, but a particular instance of which we conic! not eec Tire evidence of at the time.” The Committee called the Registrar General for New Zealand in connection with this matter, and witness stated in regard to the seqond certificate, which bore a number, 38: “I have searched the Registrars’ returns of marriage notices, and I cannot find that a certificate was issued to authorise the marriage.” The Hon. Mr Lee asked witness: That marriage is nob recorded in your books? - Witness: No; if a copy of that had beep sent to us we would have refused to accept it, because there was no tificate issued to authorise it. “Assuming a document like that had been sent to you and you had refused it, what action would you have taken?” “We would ask the clergyman by J whom the certificate was issued to 1 authorise this marriage, and would rest f at that.’’ “Would it be cleared up if he said He did not receive the Registrar’s certificate authorising the marriage?”, “We would advise him of the seriousness of the N position and ask him to advise the parties to the marriage of the position. We would recommend them to be married agahC after having taken out a Registrar’s certificate. I have looked up the records for correspondence about this thing, but I cannot find anything. It would appear as if a return of this was never sent to us.” In view of this evidence the Committee decided to inform the Catholicbishop (who had declined to tender further statements) of the development. Bishop Cleary, of Auckland, forwarded a lengthy reply, during the course of which he stated: “That in the ceremony referred to the priest did not in the Teact act as a gazetted State official. He acted solely in his capacity as the Church’s official. The witness was - charged with seeing to the proper administration of the sacrament of matrimony to tijkh .other by two: persons already legaMy (but not sacramentally) married. v gp acted quite correctly and in accordajffe with our established usage in not sending to the Registrar-General any return of this purely religious (and in no sense civil) ceremony, and neither he nor the married couple in question Were so foolish as to question or deny the fact of legal validity and civil standing and effects of the previous and not sacramental union. Judging by the statement supplied to your Committee, a certificate of religious ceremony appears to have been given to the parties in question. If a certificate was given in accordance with a Church form or Church usage it was quitfi in order; if, on the other hand, it was given on an official form as supplied by the Government this was not done by virtue of any direction or sanction of the ecclesiastical authority, or in consequence of any approved ecclesiastical custom. It may, therefore, be reasonably taken to have occurred through inadvertence or error of judgment. . This seems, to be confirmed by the omssion to send any record of the religious ceremony to the Registrar-General.” Mr Howard Elliott’s strong protest against recording statements which could not be subjected to cross-exami-nation was noted, and, the chairman re/marked that it was for the Commitee /to judge what weight it would attach /to the statements. ■ • 1