[1318] Rev. Civil Code of La. (1888), 62, 91, 92; Voorhies, Rev. Laws (1884), 236, 237; Rev. Laws (1897), 393. Since 1807 the council (or meeting) has been composed of at least five relatives or friends, summoned by the judge, and held before an officer, practically as required by the present law: see Civil Laws Now in Force in the Territory (1808), 62. For failure to attend a meeting, when cited, there is a fine of $20, in the discretion of the judge to be applied to the expenses of the meeting. In place of absentees "friends" may be appointed: Rev. Civil Code (1888), 92.
[1319] Rev. Stat. of Fla. (1892), 820, for the first time expressly prohibiting marriage within "Levitical consanguinity;" but probably earlier the law intended the same restriction: McClellan, Digest of the Laws of Fla., chap. 59, sec. 8; Wright, Report, 32.
[1320] Rev. Stat, of Ariz. (1887), 371; ibid. (1901), 809; Digest of Ark. (1894), 1125, 1126; Rev. Stat, of Mo. (1899), I, 1036; Ann. Stat, of Ind. Ter. (1899), 507; Session Laws of Okla. (1897), 208; Acts of La. (1900), 188.
[1321] Acts (1865-66), 244, removing penalty for marriage of first cousins since Dec. 11, 1863, and repealing conflicting laws.
[1322] Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico (1902), 806, 807.
[1323] Assuming that this relationship is included in the restrictions of the Levitical law which is in force in Georgia, and probably also in Florida: see McClellan, Digest of the Laws of Fla., chap. 59, sec. 8; and compare Wright, Report, 32.
[1324] Act of Oct., 1788: Hening, Statutes, XII, 688, 689. Persons married contrary to the act shall be "separated by the definitive sentence or judgment of the high court of chancery."
[1325] In 1827 the law forbidding marriage with a deceased wife's sister was considerably relaxed. The parties are no longer to be separated, but to be "deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, to be prosecuted by information, or indicted in the Superior Court of Law;" and on conviction they are to be punished by such fine or imprisonment or both, as the jury may determine: Acts (1826-27), 22. This law was still in force in 1841: Tate, Digest (2d ed.), 500, where the editor cites Vaughan's opinion in Hill v. Good, 2 Virginia Cases, 61. But the restriction does not appear in Code of Va. (1849), 470, 471 (degrees). Cf. Leigh, 17.
[1326] Act of March 15, 1860: Acts of the Assembly (1859-60), 188, 189. In West Virginia until later a man was not permitted to marry his brother's widow: see Acts (1872-73), chap. 161, p. 503, where the restriction is removed.
[1327] Laws of Md. (1790), chap. xx, repealing the act of 1777, chap. 12, sec. 1, Laws of Md., 1763-87 (1787), where these marriages are "void."