The contract of marriage is, in its essence, a consent on the part of a man and woman to cohabit with each other, and with each other only. The religious element does not require anything more of the parties; and therefore it is not essential that all the words of the marriage service to be repeated by the man and woman should be actually said ; but, the ceremonies required by law, such as the publication of banns and the like, being complied with, when the hands of the parties are joined together, and the clergyman pronounces them to be man and wife, if they understand that by that act they have agreed to cohabit together and with no other person, they are married.
Therefore, deaf and dumb persons may marry ; and the presumptions in favour of the validity of such a marriage, and of the capacity of the parties to contract it ; and the onus of proof is upon those who would impeach such a marriage.
Everything is presumed in favour of marriage.
If there be no question of mental capacity, the objectionth at a deaf and dumb person did not understand the nature of the contract of marriage which she had been induced to enter into is an objection on the ground of fraud.
Distinction between unsoundness of mind and mere dullness of intellect.
An issue as to sanity is not directed merely upon a suggestion in an answer, but such suggestion must be supported by evidence occasioning a reasonable doubt as to the sanity.
Evidence of witnesses discredited by the inconsistency therewith of their own previous conduct and acts.
Judges:
Sir W Page Wood VC
Citations:
[1854] EngR 685, (1854) 1 K and J 4, (1854) 69 ER 344
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Family
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.293542