State v. Madden

• Decision Date: 30 April 1884
• Citation: 81 Mo. 421
• Parties: THE STATE v. MADDEN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

81 Mo. 421

THE STATE

v.MADDEN, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1884.

Appeal from Ste. Genevieve Circuit Court.--HON. J. D. FOX, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

No brief for appellant.

D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.

It is not pointed out wherein the section of the statute conflicts with any provision of the State constitution, nor can anything be found in the constitution prohibiting the legislature from enacting such a law. The enactment of such legislation violates none of the inalienable rights of the citizen guaranteed by the bill of rights. “The right to regulate marriage, the age at which persons may enter into that relation, the manner in which the rites may be celebrated, and the persons between whom it may be contracted, has been assumed and exercised by every civilized and Christian nation.” State v. Jackson, 80 Mo. 175. “There can be no doubt as to the power of every country to make laws regulating the marriage of its own subjects, to declare who may marry, how they may marry, and what shall be the legal consequences of their marrying.” Brook v. Brook, 9 House of L. R. 223; Francois v. State, 9 Tex. App. 144. If the State has control over the subject of marriage to the extent indicated by the above authorities, it certainly can provide and enforce a mere police regulation, such as that created by section 1546, supra. Similar enactments have been upheld elsewhere. State v. Horsey, 14 Ind. 186; State v. Pierce, 14 Ind. 302.

NORTON, J.

At the November term, 1880, of the circuit court of Ste. Genevieve county, defendant was indicted for failing to return a certificate of marriage to the recorder of said county. He was tried, found guilty, and fined $20, and brings the case to this court on appeal, and assigns for error, the action of the trial court in overruling a demurrer to the indictment. The grounds alleged in the demurrer are, that the facts alleged in the indictment do not charge any offense known to the law, and because the statute upon which the indictment is founded is unconstitutional and void.

Omitting the formal parts of the indictment it charges that defendant “at the county of Ste. Genevieve, on the -- day of May, 1880, he being then and there a priest of the Roman Catholic church, and having authority to join others in marriage, did join in marriage William Hoffman, of the town of St. Mary, and county aforesaid, and Rosa Rozier, of said town, and did then and there unlawfully and willfully, fail, neglect and refuse to transmit to the recorder of the county of Ste. Genevieve the certificate of the marriage aforesaid.”

This indictment is based upon section 1546, Revised Statutes, which is as follows: “If any person, authorized to solemnize any marriage, or whose duty it may be to make return of any marriage, shall willfully fail to make such return, or shall make a false return of any marriage, or pretended marriage, to the proper recorder * * such person so...