¶1 The defendant is the Register of Deeds of Orange County, and as such is charged with the very important duty of issuing marriage licenses. It is to be assumed that he was elected to the said office in view of his intelligence, discretion and general fitness for the position, and as to the discharge of the particular duty in question, the public have a right to require of him the active exercise of these qualities. The law provides that he shall make reasonable inquiry as to the age of persons desiring a license to marry, and that if, without such reasonable inquiry, he issues such license without the consent of the father, etc., where either of the persons is under the age of eighteen, he shall “ forfeit and pay two hundred dollars to any person who shall sue for the same.” The Code, § 1816. Did the defendant make such reasonable inquiry in the present case? According to his own testimony he made no inquiry whatever, and the license was issued by another person who, as “special deputy to issue marriage licenses” and who resided twelve miles from the county seat, was authorized to fill up blank licenses signed by the defendant and issue the same. Surely this is *187 not a performance of the duty which the law imposes upon him, and we are clearly of the opinion that upon these facts, he has incurred the penalty sued for. This being our' view of the law, the exception addressed to the ruling of his Honor on the question as to whether the “special deputy” made reasonable inquiry, become immaterial, and if there was error it would be harmless, and therefore, not a ground for a new trial.'
¶2 Affirmed.