The indictment contains three counts : 3. Charging that defendant, not being an ordained minister or a justice of the'peace, and not being by law authorized so to do, did unlawfully, willfully and corruptly solemnize a marriage between a male and female, cfcc. 2. Charging that defendant, not being authorized by law to celebrate a marriage, did unlawfully, &c., presume to act as an ordained minister and celebrate a marriage between a male and female person, and to pronounce them man and wife, contrary to the statute, &c. 3. Charging that defendant, not being a public officer, nor an ordained minister or justice of the peace, did unlawfully, &c., personate an ordained minister, and so celebrate a marriage between a male and female person and pronounce them man and wife, contrary, &c.
The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, and on motion of the defendant, judgment was arrested and the solicitor excepted and appealed. The record discloses no evidence by the State or the defendant, nor any exception, except as above stated. Assuming, however, every fact alleged to be true, we are unable to discover any criminal offence known to the law. ¥e are referred to no authority for the position of the State. We were referred to Code, Section 1812, which only prescribes what is a valid marriage ; also to Code, Section 1112, which imposes a penalty, and declares it to be a misdemeanor for any officer to fail to return process, &c., or for any person who is not authorized by law to presume to act as any such officer.
So, the case is that of a private citizen, unofficial, celebrating a marriage between a man and woman with their consent and they are not complaining, and are presumably *828satisfied and enjoying their new relation. We are not aware of any statute or principle of the common law declaring the action of the defendant to be a criminal offence. We are not considering tlie validity or invalidity or effect of the action of the several parties.
Affirmed.