marriage, and an opportunity of forbidding it, so that, if they make no effort to prevent it, their consent may reasonably be assumed, (a) it would not seem unreasonable to hold that the marriage by banns of a minor should be valid. Where banns have been published, and no dissent been expressed by parents or guardians, at the time of publication, the husband being under age does not make the marriage void, even by the English marriage act 26 Geo. 2, c. 33. (b) It is not necessary that marriages should be solemnized in a church, or within any particular hours. (c)

The Imp. Stat. 28 & 29 Vic., c. 64, declares that Colonial laws establishing the validity of marriages shall have effect throughout Her Majesty's Dominions. The 11 Geo. 4, c. 36, cured defects in the form of marriages solemnized by Justices of the Peace before the passing of the Act. (d)

The 18 Vic., c. 129, indicates clearly that the former Statute was not intended to operate retrospectively, except in the case of marriages solemnized by persons who before that Act had authority to solemnize marriage. The 11 Geo. 4, c. 36, had two distinct objects,-first, to remove difficulties which might arise in consequence of marriages having been irregularly performed by persons who had authority to marry; and, secondly, to confer authority to solemnize marriages upon ministers of certain religious bodies, whose ministers had no such authority before that Act was passed. The Act has retrospective force as to the latter object only. (e)

The 23 Vic., c. 11, and 24 Vic., c. 46, confirm and legalize certain marriages therein mentioned. The 25 Vic.,

(a) Reg. v. Roblin, 21 U. C. Q. B. 454, per Robinson, C. J.

(b) Reg. v. Secker, 14 U. C. Q. B. 604.

(c) Reg. v. Secker, supra; Con. Stat. U. C. c. 72, s. 3.
(d) Doe dem, Wheeler, v. M' Williams, 2 U. C. Q. B. 77.

(e) Pringle v. Allan, 18 U. C. Q. B. 578, per Robinson, C. J.

cs. 46 and 47, contain certain provisions as to registering marriages and the offences connected therewith. Marriages contracted in Ireland between members of the Church of England and Presbyterians celebrated by ministers not belonging to the Church of England are legalized by the Imp Stat. 5 & 6 Vic., c. 26, and such marriages celebrated before that Act was passed, are legal marriages in this country. (a) A written contract is not essential to the validity of a Jewish marriage which has been solemnized with all the usual forms and ceremonies of the Jewish service and faith. Such marriage is valid, though there exists in relation to it a written contract which is not produced. (b) A case has been decided in Quebec as to the marriage of a Lower Canadian by birth with a Squaw of the Cree nation. (c) In this case it was held (inter alia) that a marriage contracted where there are no priests, no magistrates, or civil or religious authority, and no registers, is valid, though not accompanied by any religious or civil ceremony. An Indian marriage between a Christian and a woman of that nation or tribe, is valid, notwithstanding the assumed existence of polygamy and divorce at will which are no obstacles to the recognition by our Courts of a marriage contracted according to the usages and customs of the country; and an Indian marriage, according to the usage of the Cree country, followed by cohabitation and repute, and the bringing up of a numerous family, will be recognized as a valid marriage by our Courts. (d)

A marriage in a foreign country between persons not being British subjects, if invalid there, must be held invalid in this country, though the parties have done all in their power to make it a valid legal marriage. (e) The

(a) Breakey v. Breakey, 2 U. C. Q. B. 349.

(b) Frank v. Carson, 15 U. C. C. P. 135.
(c) See Connolly v. Woolrich, 11 L. C. J. 197.
(d) Ib.

(e) Harris v. Cooper, 31 U. C. Q. B. 182.

age of consent to marriage in a woman is twelve, (a) and for a man fourteen. If a boy under fourteen, or a girl under twelve contracts matrimony, it is void, unless both husband and wife consent to and confirm the marriage after the minor arrives at the age of consent. (b)

In an indictment for bigamy committed in the United States, it is necessary that the indictment should contain allegations that the accused is a British subject; that he is or was resident in the Province, and that he left it with intent to commit the offence. (c) The words, "or elsewhere," in the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 20, s. 58, extend to bigamy committed in a foreign jurisdiction. (d) It is immaterial whether the second marriage take place in Canada or in a foreign country, provided, if the second marriage take place out of Canada, the accused be a subject of Her Majesty. (e) A soldier convicted of bigamy is not thereby discharged from military service. (ƒ)

It has been held that, under the 55 Geo. 3, c. 3, a writ of exigi facias against a person against whom an indictment for bigamy has been found at the assizes, will be awarded by this Court upon the application of the prosecutor, without its being applied for by the AttorneyGeneral. (g)

Libel.-A libel upon an individual is a malicious defamation of any person made public, either by printing, writing, signs, or pictures, in order to provoke him to wrath, or to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. (h)

Wherever an action will lie for a libel, without laying

special damage, an indictment will also lie. (a) An action for libel lies against a corporation aggregate where malice in law may be inferred from the publication of the words. (b)

It would seem also that a corporation may be indicted by its corporate name, and fined for the publication of such libel. (c) A joint action may be maintained against several persons for the joint publication of a libel. (d) It seems also that an indictment or information will lie against all persons concerned in the joint publication of a libel. (e)

Where the defendant published the following of and concerning the plaintiff:-" Caution : To all persons who may be entering into any arrangements with J. M. C. for his self-action cattle and stock pump, who claims to have patented the same in April last, I wish by this notice to caution the public against having anything to do with Cousins or his pumps, it being an infringement on my patent, which was obtained by me in 1858. I intend to prosecute him immediately. Beware of the fraud and save costs,"-it was held that this publication disclosed a libel on the plaintiff personally, in the caution to all persons about to enter into arrangements with the plaintiff for his pumps, against having anything to do with plaintiff or his pumps, and in the words "beware of the fraud," in relation to the infringement of the patent. (ƒ)

Where the plaintiffs were manufacturers of bags, and manufactured a bag which they called the "bag of bags;" and the defendant printed and published concerning the plaintiffs and their business the words fol

(a) Arch. Cr. Pldg. 857; Stanton v. Andrews, 5 U. C. Q. B. O. S. 229, per Macaulay, J.

(b) Whitfield v. S. E. Ry. Co., 4 U. C. L. J. 242; E. B. & E. 115.

(e) E. C. Ry. Co. v. Broom, 6 Ex. 314; Arch. Cr. Pldg. 7.

(d) Brown v. Hirley, 5 U. C. Q. B. O. S. 734.

(e) Ib.; Rex v. Benfield Burr, 980; 5 Mod. 167.

(f) Cousins v. Merrill, 16 U. C. C. P. 114.

lowing:-"As we have not seen the bag of bags, we cannot say that it is useful, or that it is portable, or that it is elegant. All these it may be. But the only point we can deal with is the title, which we think very silly, very slangy, and very vulgar, and which has been forced upon the notice of the public ad nauseam :"—Held on demurrer (by Mellor and Hannen, J. J.) that it was a question for the jury whether the words did not convey an imputation on the plaintiffs' conduct in their business, and whether the language went beyond the limits of fair criticism. By Lush, J., that the words could not be deemed libellous, either upon the plaintiffs, or upon the mode of conducting their business. (a)

The defendant published in a newspaper an article respecting the plaintiff as inspecting field-officer of volunteers and militia, in which, after referring to a recent inspection of a particular battalion, and stating that it was not often that "an example of swearing and drunkenness was set by the officers to their men," it was said that it was very little to the plaintiff's credit that "he appears before the volunteers as a transgressor without apology of those laws of discipline and good conduct, the observance of which he so strictly enjoins." In another part, it was said, "we have been for some time aware that the plaintiff was often incapable of attending to his duty here and elsewhere, and now that his evil habits appear to be entirely beyond his control, it is high time for the head of the department to deal with the case." Per Draper, C. J., the publication complained of, without the aid of any inuendo or explanation, is libellous. (b)

To charge a man with ingratitude is libellous, and such charge may also be libellous, notwithstanding that

(a) Jenner v. A'Beckett, L. R. 7 Q. B. 11.

(b) Baretto v. Pirie, 26 U. C. Q. B. 469.