Williams v. . Hodges

Merrimon, J., (after stating the case.) It appears that the defendant was the Register of Deeds of the County of Lenoir, on the 8th day of March, 1887, and the question presented by the record for our dcision is, did iappear probable, upon reasonable inquiry made by him at the time he issued the license mentioned on that day for the marriage of the female Ann Williams therein named and Chauncy Smith, that she was of the age of 18 years? The sections of the statute (The Code, §§1814-1816) pertaining to and regulating marriage, are in pari materia, and must be construed together in the respects material here. Bowles v. Cochran, 93 N. C., 398. The first of these sections provides, among other things, that “ Every Register of Deeds shall, upon application, issue a license for the marriage of any two persons: Provided, it shall appear to him probable that there is no legal impediment to such marriage,” &c. The second provides that "Every Register of Deeds who shall knowingly, or without reasonable inquiry, issue a license for the marriage of any two persons to which there is any lawful ,impediment, or when either of the persons is under the age of eighteen years, without the consent required by section eighteen hundred and fourteen, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars to any person who shall sue for the same.” The authority thus conferred to issue license is not to be exercised carelessly and as a mere matter of form. It is important, and intended to serve the very wholesome purpose, among other things, of preventing marriage, when there exists some legal impediment, and to prevent the marriage of persons, male or female, under the age of eighteen years, and therefore not presumed to be capable of wisely entering into so important a relation unless with the written *303 consent of the parent or person having the care and charge of such person to be married. The license shall not be issued as of course, to any person who shall apply for it— the Register is charged to be cautious and io scrutinize the application; it must appear probable to him upon reasonable inquiry, when he has not personal knowledge of the parties, that the license may and ought to be issued. The probability upon which the Register should act is not such as arises from conjecture, founded upon the application and pointless or evasive replies-to inquiries put to the person applying for the license, but from evidence — not necessarily evidence in the strict technical sense — from inquiry of trustworthy persons known to the Register who can and do give pertinent information called out by similar inquiry presently or within a reasonable time; from the examination of pertinent records and entries; from inquiry as to like events, and from the like inquiries; and the evidence thus elicited should render it probable — more likely than the contrary — that the license should be issued in pursuance of the application for the same. In this case, to justify the defendant as to the license in question, such or like inquiry should have been made by him, and the evidence elicited should have been such as rendered it affirmatively probable that Ann Williams was of the age of eighteen years — that'is, that she was— was more probable than the contrary. And such license should never be issued until it should thus appear probable to the Register to whom application is made for the same, that it ought to be issued. To issue a license to marry “without reasonable inquiry,” without care and scrutiny, and when it ddes not appear probable to the Register that it may and ought to issue, as the law contemplates, is a perversion of the statute, disappoints its just purpose and oftentimes brings distress and ruin upon individuals and families. To prevent such evils the statute provides heavy penalties. Now, applying what we have said, we are of opinion that *304 it did not appear probable to the defendant, upon “ reasonable inquiry,” that Ann Williams, mentioned, was of the age of eighteen years when the license for her marriage was issued by him. He did not know her or her family, nor did he know Smith named in the license or his family. An entire stranger to him made application for the license. He made no inquiry except of this stranger. The questions put to him were very general and vague — not such as to elicit directly' material information, except that as to the age of Ann Williams. The answer in this respect was uncertain, careless and unsatisfactory — indeed, it suggested further inquiry, but none,further was made. Pie was not even asked if the father of the female resided in the county of Lenoir, and it seems the defendant did not‘know that he did or did not. Surely such inquiry in respect to such a matter was not reasonable, nor did the inquiries, and the information so unsatisfactory, make it appear probable that the female was of the age of eighteen years. The mere personal appearance of an entire stranger was not evidence to create such probability — it was scarcely ground for conjecture. That an entire stranger, not vouched for, should make such an application, was rather ground of suspicion that it was not made in good faith, and this should have prompted further and satisfactory inquiry before issuing the license. Coley v. Lewis, 91 N. C., 21; Bowles v. Cochran, supra. There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed. Affirmed.