OPINIONS (INFORMAL OR LETTER) PRISON LAW - - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DOUBT. CERTIFICATES OF REASONABLE A prisoner who obtains a certificate of reasonable doubt may not have counted in his favor the time he is at liberty under such certificate upon his prison sentence. INQUIRY If a prisoner is released from prison upon a certificate of reasonable doubt, which certificate is thereafter vacated and he is returned to prison, does the time he was out of prison by reason of such certificate count as part of the term of his original sentence? OPINION My conclusion is that the issuance of the certificate of reasonable doubt stays the execution of the sentence. This is based upon section 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as follows: "If, before the granting of the certificate, the execution of the judgment have commenced, the further execution thereof is suspended and the defendant must be restored by the officer in whose custody he is to his original custody." The result would be, therefore, that during the time he was out of prison under the certificate, his sentence would cease to run and his return he would have to serve the interrupted time. Dated, January 6, 1916. upon E. E. WOODBURY, To Hon. JOHN B. RILEY, Superintendent of State Prisons, Albany, N. Y. DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW-COMMON LAW MARRIAGES-SAVING CLAUSE, § 19. A marriage consummated upon the high seas, by the captain of the vessel would be invalid under our laws, unless one or both of the contracting parties believed, in good faith, that the person solemnizing the marriage had authority to do so. INQUIRY Does a marriage ceremony performed by the captain of a vessel owned by a New York State corporation upon the high seas purporting to unite in wedlock two residents of the Kingdom of Denmark constitute a legal marriage under the laws of the State of New York? OPINION My opinion is asked as to the validity of a marriage between Peter Theador Thogerson and Valborg Maria Stumann, and I am informed by the papers accompanying the inquiry that, on July 8th, 1907, the above named parties, both residents of Copenhagen, Denmark, and I assume citizens of that country, were married by one A. W. Nelson, Captain of the Pacific Mail S. S. "City of Panama," on board said ship; that at the time of such marriage the ship was seven nautical miles from land. The marriage ceremony was performed by such captain upon the mutual request of the contracting parties, but there is nothing to indicate that the captain was clothed with any authority to perform such ceremony, as provided by and under the statutes of this State, and I assume for the purpose of this opinion that he had no right to solemnize such a marriage according to the laws of this State. The certificate is signed by three witnesses. It is stated in the letter of Hon. T. W. Gregory, United States Attorney-General, to the Secretary of State, Hon. Robert Lansing, that the validity of this marriage will depend upon the laws of this State, and the reason given for such statement is the fact that the "City of Panama" is owned by the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, which is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. The two contracting parties were residents and citizens of a foreign country at the time of such marriage, and the ceremony was performed outside of the three mile limit and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of both the United States and the State of New York, and having been performed upon the ocean outside of the jurisdiction of any country, it would appear to me that it is more important to ascertain whether the marriage was valid by the laws of Denmark. However, it has been held that the validity of a marriage is to be determined by the law of the State where it was entered into (Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 86 N. Y. 18), and as the vessel upon which the marriage was solemnized was owned by a New York corporation and sailing under the American flag, and registered at the port of New York, it is deemed essential that the marriage should be tested by the laws of the State of New York, and inasmuch as Mr. Brun, the Danish minister, has asked the question "whether the marriage was a lawful and valid marriage according to the laws of the State of New York," I have given the subject consideration along those lines. 66 Prior to the enactment of chapter 339 of the Laws of 1901, a man and woman, by agreeing to be married, followed by cohabitation and mutual acknowledgment by both of the existence of the marital relations and by holding each other out to the world as husband and wife, thus became legally married, and such marriages were known as common law" marriages, but, by the passage of the above act, section 19 thereof provided that no marriage, after January 1st, 1902, should be valid unless solemnized as therein stated, and this provision remained in force until the passage of chapter 742 of the Laws of 1907, which took effect January 1, 1908. This section 19 was repealed by the last mentioned act and since that time there has been no direct prohibition against common law marriages except as the statute provides that all marriages must be solemnized by certain clergymen and officers named therein, which inferentially at least prohibits the consummation of marriage by common law methods. This section was in full force and effect at the time of the marriage, or pretended marriage, of the parties under consideration herein; however, there is a saving clause for marriages solemnized under certain conditions, and for a better understanding of its provisions, it is here given in full: "§ 19. No marriage claimed to have been contracted on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and two, |