which would, in times of fence, been
iiclid,
will not be valid
profered videnince is enacted.
It
*
57
the
I think
t chruth be recognised that a purm, who incealed infinitim about
previous marrie
+ who had no
a
grounds for rupposing the oltes partinus
to it was not alive i
fully divorcs, is hable to the penallics of bijamy.
I suggest the dinincs propones should make this clear: the (wm would not necessarily from the charge of bigamy.
Ynus sinuendy
Almin
3