
    *Commonwealth v. Hill.
    June, 1836.
    Marriage Licence — Infant—Indictment against Clerk-Case at Bar — In an indictment upon the statute 1 Rev. Code, ch. 106, § 16, against the clerk of a county court, for issuing a marriage licence for the marriage of an infant never before married, ■without the consent of the infant’s father or guardian, it is not necessary to charge, that the clerk knew that the party was an infant, or that he issued the licence maliciously or corruptly, or that a marriage took place in pursuance of the licence.
    Case .adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Payette. Hill, clerk of the county court of Payette, was indicted in the circuit superiour court, for issuing a licence for the marriage of an infant, without the consent of the infant’s father or guardian, contrary to the provisions of the marriage act, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 106, § 16, pp. 398, 9. There were four counts in the indictment. The 1st charged, that Hill, in August 1833, being then clerk of the county court of Payette, issued a licence, directed to any minister of the gospel duly authorized to celebrate the rites of matrimony, for the marriage of John Stockton to Elizabeth Rader, the said Stockton being then an infant under twenty-one years of age and | never before married, without the consent of Aaron Stockton, the infant’s father, who was then living, given either personally before the clerk, or certified and attested according to law, contrary to the statute &c. The 2nd count charged, that Hill issued a licence for the marriage of J. Stockton to E. Rader, J. Stockton being then an infant and not theretofore married, without the consent of A. Stockton his father (in general terms), contrary to the statute &c. The 3rd count was like the second, except that it charged, that the licence was issued by the clerk, for the marriage of the infant J. Stockton, without the consent of A. Stockton, or of the guardian of the infant. And the 4th count was like the first,, except that it did not charge, that the marriage licence issued by the clerk, was. addressed to any minister *of the gospel &c. and it charged, that it was. issued without the consent of the father, in general terms. None of the counts, charged, that the clerk knew, at the time he issued the licence, that J. Stockton was. an infant; or that he issued it maliciously or corruptly; or that a marriage was actually celebrated between the parties,, pursuant to the licence. The defendant demurred generally to each and every count-in the indictment. And the court, with the defendant’s consent, adjourned the following questions to this court: 1. Whether it was necessary to charge in the indictment, that the defendant knew when he issued the marriage licence, that John Stockton was an infant? 2. Whether it was. necessary to charge in the indictment, that the issuing of the marriage licence was done unlawfully or maliciously or corruptly?' 3. Whether the indictment, or either of the counts thereof, was defective?
   PER CURIAM

Since the passing of the recent statute to amend and explain the marriage act (act of 1835-6, ch. 64, Sess. Acts, p. 43), it is understood but little interest is felt as to the decision of the questions adjourned to this court. It is necessary, however, that a decision should be made, that the case may proceed in the court below. The following judgment is. to be entered — ‘ ‘The court is of opinion and. doth decide, that the indictment is sufficient, and neither count thereof defective:: this is deemed a sufficient answer to all the questions adjourned: which is ordered to be certified &c.”  