Morrison v. Teague.

BbowN, J. Tbe plaintiff testified tbat bis daughter, Ina May, was seventeen years four months and six days old when she was married to Boss Kennedy, her first cousin, who resided in Nebraska, and tbat she bad tbe appearance of a well-developed woman; tbat she lived in Iredell County with plaintiff, some twelve miles from Taylorsville and eight miles from Statesville. Tbe defendant Teague, Begister of Deeds of Alexander County, issued tbe marriage license, upon tbe application of Boss Kennedy, and under it the marriage was duly solemnized in said county. At tbe time tbe application was made for tbe license tbe young lady was not present, and as there is no evidence tbat the Begister knew her, we think her physical appearance may be considered as irrelevant. What transpired at tbe time Kennedy applied for license appears solely in tbe testimony of witness Matherson, as follows: “I live in Taylorsville; in April, 1905, I was in tbe office of tbe Begister of Deeds, Mr. Teague, with Mr. Long, when be asked Mr. Teague about issuing tbe license. Teague said be bad no written permission; said be inquired of Kennedy and a man with him about tbe girl’s age; said be knew neither of them, but issued tbe license and made no further inquiry of any one.” Cross-examined: “Teague said be made inquiry of them why they applied for license in Tay-lorsville; be said they said tbe girl lived in an adjoining county, and tbat it was nearer to Taylorsville than it was to Statesville; tbat be inquired of both; said they appeared to be nice, decent men; be said they both said they knew her age and she was over eighteen years of age, and said Kennedy swore she was.” Defendant offered no evidence. *188 Plaintiff requested tbe Court to charge the jury as matter of law that defendant Teague in any view of the evidence failed to make reasonable inquiry as to the age of plaintiff’s daughter. Refused. Plaintiff excepted. The Court, instructed the jury that the evidence being uncontradicted, he held as a matter of law that' the defendant had made reasonable inquiry as to the age of Ina May Morrison, and if the jury believed the evidence they would answer the third issue “No,” and the fourth issue, “Nothing.” Plaintiff excepted. The learned counsel for the defendant, Mr. Qwaltney, most earnestly contended in his argument that upon a fair interpretation of the words “reasonable inquiry,” the charge of his Honor should be sustained. Notwithstanding we find ourselves unable to reconcile this view with very recent decisions of this Court, we agree with counsel that upon the evidence in the record the question was one of law, and that his Honor was correct in so holding. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the Register took the word of the prospective bridegroom and his friend as to the age of the young lady and made no further inquiry of any one; that the Register did not know either Kennedy or his friend. The Register’s suspicions seem to have been aroused, for he inquired why they applied for license in Taylorsville, as the girl lived in Iredell; nevertheless, he made no further inquiry. We think that under our decisions his Honor should have given the plaintiff’s prayer for instruction, and that he erred in the instruction he gave. The subject is fully discussed by Mr. Justice Gonnor in Furr v. Johnson, 140 N. C., 157; Trolinger v. Boroughs, 133 N. C., 312. Possibly on the next trial defendant may offer evidence which will tend to prove that he made reasonable inquiry. In this record there is none. New Trial.