Opinion of the Court. or at any contract of marriage between the parties; a marriage was inferred from their declarations and their living together. In explanation of his adopting her name of Markley, one of the sisters states that he informed her that he desired to keep his marriage secret from his mother, as she was a Quakeress and hostile to his marriage out of the society to which she belonged. On the cher hand, it appeared, from other witnesses, that his being married was never communicated to his family; that neither his brothers, sisters, nor intimate companions and associates ever heard of it; and that his mother was an Episcopalian, and therefore his professed reason for keeping his marriage secret from her was a mere pretence to conceal his actual relations to the woman with whom he was living, whatever they were. Cross testified that the deceased had admitted to him his marriage with Miss Markley, and had given the reason mentioned for concealing his own name and taking hers; also, that the deceased had great confidence in him, and after Rebecca's death had spoken of his marriage and stated that he owed to her all his early success. One of the defendants, called as a witness for the defence, was permitted, against the objection of the plaintiff, to testify to conversations with the deceased about Cross, and that the deceased had expressed great distrust of him, calling him anything but an honest man, and stating that Cross had been in the penitentiary, and that it had cost the deceased $500 to get him out. This testimony was clearly inadmissible; it was mere heresay. Testimony as to the admissions and conduct of a person cannot be impeached by his statements to a third party as to the character of the witness. The evidence, too, was material. It tended directly to discredit Cross and thus weaken the force of his statements respecting the asserted marriage. It is impossible to say what effect it may have had on the minds of the jury on the question of the marriage. As the case must, for this error, go back for a new trial, it is proper to say that, by the law of Pennsylvania, where, if at all, the parties were married, a marriage is a civil contract, and may be made per verba de præsenti, that is, by words in the present tense, without attending ceremonies, religious or civil. Such is Syllabus. also the law of many other States in the absence of statutory regulation. It is the doctrine of the common law. But where no such ceremonies are required, and no record is made to attest the marriage, some public recognition of it is necessary as evidence of its existence. The protection of the parties and their children and considerations of public policy require this public recognition; and it may be made in any way which can be seen and known by men, such as living together as man and wife, treating each other and speaking of each other in the presence of third parties as being in that relation, and declaring the relation in documents executed by them whilst living together, such as deeds, wills, and other formal instruments. From such recognition the reputation of being married will obtain among friends, associates, and acquaintances, which is of itself evidence of a persuasive character. Without it the existence of the marriage will always be a matter of uncertainty; and the charge of the court should direct the jury to its necessity in the absence of statutory regulations on the subject. Otherwise the jury would be without any guide in their deliberations. The law of Pennsylvania, as we are advised, requires, in some form, such recognition. See Nathan's Case, 2 Brewster, 149, 153; Commonwealth v. Stump, 53 Penn. St. 132. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. ARTHUR, Collector, v. MORGAN. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Submitted November 26, 1884.-Decided December 22, 1884. A carriage in use abroad for a year by its owner, who brings it to this country for his own use here, and not for another person nor for sale, is "household effects" under § 2505 Rev. Stat. (p. 484, 2d ed.), and free from duty. A protest against paying 35 per cent. duty on the carriage, which states that the carriage is "personal effects," and had been used over a year (as shown Statement of Facts. by affidavit), and that, under § 2505 of the Revised Statutes, "personal effects in actual use" are free from duty, is a sufficient protest, on which the amount paid for duty can be recovered back on the ground that the carriage was free from duty as "household effects," under the same section. Julia Morgan imported into the port of New York, from Europe, in May, 1876, a carriage, on which, at the appraised value of $667, the collector exacted a duty of 35 per cent., amounting to $233.45, under the following provision of Schedule M of § 2504 of the Revised Statutes (p. 474, 2d ed.): "Carriages and parts of carriages: thirty-five per centum ad valorem." She protested in writing to the collector against paying the 35 per cent. duty, on the ground that the carriage was "personal effects" and had been used by her “over a year," and that she had shown that fact by affidavit, and that, under § 2505 of the Revised Statutes, "personal effects in actual use" (Ib. 487) were free from duty. She appealed from the decision of the collector to the Secretary of the Treasury, and he affirmed it, and then she brought this suit. At the trial the above facts were shown, and the plaintiff proved that the affidavit referred to was to the effect that the carriage was old and had been in use by her abroad for more than one year before its importation; that the affidavit was deposited with the defendant, and transmitted by him to the Secretary, with the appeal; that she was a native citizen of the United States, and had lived abroad some three years, as a temporary resident, prior to the importation, and had returned to this country about two weeks before the importation; that the carriage had been purchased by her in France, and had been used by her as a family carriage abroad for more than one year before its importation; and that it was imported by her for her own use in this country, and was not intended for any other person or persons or for sale. The defendant offered no testimony, but moved the court to direct a verdict for the defendant on the following grounds: "First; that no evidence was offered to support the claim made in the plaintiff's protest, that the carriage was a personal effect in actual use, within the meaning of that term as used in section 2505 Revised Statutes of the United States. Opinion of the Court. "Second; that the said protest was insufficient to raise the point that the carriage was included within the meaning of the term 'household effects,' as that term is used in section 2505 Revised Statutes of the United States. "Third; that, even if the protest be considered sufficient to raise the last point, the carriage in question cannot properly be held to be included within the true sense and meaning of the term 'household effects,' as that term is used in section 2505 Revised Statutes of the United States." The court denied the motion on each ground, and the defendant excepted to each ruling. A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, the court having directed it on the ground that, on the testimony and within the meaning of § 2505, the carriage was "a household effect," and the exaction of duties was illegal. The defendant excepted to the direction, and, after a judgment against him, brought this writ of error. Mr. Solicitor-General for plaintiff in error. Mr. L. W. Emerson for defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as stated above, and continued: It was provided by § 2505 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, that the importation of the following articles should be exempt from duty: 1. "Books, household effects, or libraries, or parts of libraries, in use, of persons or families from foreign countries, if used abroad by them not less than one year, and not intended for any other person or persons, nor for sale." (P. 484, 2d ed.) 2. "Personal and household effects, not merchandise, of citizens of the United States dying abroad." (P. 487, 2d ed.) 3. "Wearing apparel in actual use, and other personal effects (not merchandise), professional books, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, occupation or employment of persons arriving in the United States. But this exemption shall not be construed to include machinery, or other articles imported for use in any manufacturing establishment, or for sale." (P. 489, 2d ed.) VOL. CXII-32 Opinion of the Court. By 1 of the act of August 10, 1790, ch. 39, 1 Stat. 181, there were exempted from duty, "the clothes, books, household furniture, and the tools or implements of the trade or profession of persons who come to reside in the United States." This exemption was continued by § 2 of the act of May 2, 1792, ch. 27, 1 Stat. 260. As to the above clause 1, Schedule I of the act of July 30, 1846, ch. 74, 9 Stat. 49, exempted from duty "household effects, old and in use, of persons or families from foreign countries, if used abroad by them, and not intended for any other person or persons, or for sale." The same exemption was continued in § 3 of the act of March 3, 1857, ch. 98, 11 Stat. 194, and in § 23 of the act of March 2, 1861, ch. 68, 12 Id. 195. By § 22 of the act of July 14, 1870, ch. 255, 16 Id. 265, 268, exemption was extended, in addition, to "household effects of persons and families returning or emigrating from foreign countries, which have been in actual use abroad by them, and not intended for any other person or persons, or for sale, not exceeding the value of five hundred dollars." The above clause 1 first appeared in § 5 of the act of June 6, 1872, ch. 315, 17 Stat. 234, and is now in force as part of § 2503 of the Revised Statutes, by virtue of § 6 of the act of March 3, 1883, ch. 121, 22 Stat. 518. As to the above clause 2, § 9 of the act of August 30, 1842, ch. 270, 5 Stat. 560, exempted from duty “books, and personal and household effects, not merchandise, of citizens of the United States dying abroad." Omitting the words "books and" this provision was repeated in Schedule I of the act of July 30, 1846, ch. 74, 9 Stat. 49, and in § 3 of the act of March 3, 1857, ch. 98, 11 Id. 194, and in § 23 of the act of March 2. 1861, ch. 68, 12 Id. 195, and is now in force as part of § 2503 of the Revised Statutes, by virtue of § 6 of the act of March 3, 1883, ch. 121, 22 Stat. 520. The history of clause 3 above is fully given in Astor v. Merritt, 111 U. S. 210. In June, 1876, the Attorney-General advised the Secretary of the Treasury that the words "personal effects," in clause 3 above, did not include carriages previously in use, but only |