#### Ernest D. McArthur, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph A. Hopson, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 18,354.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1912.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed January 12, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Ernest D. McArthur against Joseph A. Hopson to recover damages for alienation of the af*488fections of plaintiff’s wife. To reverse a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff for one thousand dollars, defendant prosecutes error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Husband and wife, § 280 * —when admission of letter in suit for alienation reversible error. In an action for alienation of wife’s affections, admission in evidence of a letter'written "by the wife to defendant and found in defendant’s possession held reversible error.

2. Husband and wife, § 280 * —when letter written by wife to husband not admissible in suit for alienation. In an action for alienation of plaintiff’s wife’s affections, a letter written by the wife to the plaintiff held not admissible in evidence.

3. Marriage, § 26 * —sufficiency of proof of ceremonial marriage. In an action for alienation of wife’s affections, proof of ceremonial marriage held scanty where plaintiff testified he was married to his alleged wife on a certain date at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and further puts in evidence over objection a certificate of a justice of the peace in Milwaukee county, which in connection with his testimony showed that the ceremony was before such justice.

4. Marriage, § 24 * —evidence inadmissible to prove ceremonial marriage. The certificate of a justice of the peace of another State is not of itself evidence of the official character of the justice or of his right to perform a marriage ceremony or that the ceremony was performed and is inadmissible as such evidence.

5. Husband and wife, § 280 * —degree of proof required in suit for alienation. In an action for alienation of wife’s affections a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to establish plaintiff’s case.

6. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 27 * —when rules of court must be presented by bill of exceptions. The Appellate Court in cases coming from the Municipal Court cannot take judicial notice of the rules of that court nor consider them unless they are made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.

Cruice & Langille, for plaintiff in error.

Comerford & Cohen, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.