Page:An introduction to Roman-Dutch law.djvu/75

the Court he will be personally answerable for costs, if the suit proves unsuccessful.^[1]

3. Consent to marriage of minor children; 3. Consent to marriage of minor children. The consent of parents is necessary to the marriage of minor children,^[2] and without it the marriage is null and void.^[3] Consent may be either express or implied. It is implied if the father knows that the marriage of the minor is about to take place and does not forbid it.^[4] Strictly, the mother's consent is also necessary, but in case of disagreement the father's will prevails.^[5] In the absence of fraud, publication of banns is, in the Cape Province, presumptive evidence of consent, and a marriage celebrated after publication of banns without objection by the father is neither void nor voidable.^[6] But a marriage celebrated after special licence without the father's consent may be set aside at his instance. The consent of grandparents or remoter ascendants is in no case necessary,^[7] nor is consent necessary to a second marriage of widows or widowers who are under the ordinary age of majority.^[8]

4. Right to appoint guardians by will; 4. Right to provide testamentary guardians. This has been mentioned above,^[9] and will be further considered under the head of Guardianship.

5. Rights in respect of minor children's property.

5. Rights in respect of minor children's property. The Dutch Law, following the Roman Law, distinguishes between peculium profecticium and peculium adventicium. Jure civili the first of these belonged wholly to the father;^[10] of the second, which belonged to the son, the

1. Van der Walt v. Hudson (1886) 4 S. C. 327.
2. Gr. 1. 5. 15, and Schorer, ad loc.
3. Voet, 23. 2. 11; V. d. K. Th. 75; V. d. L. 1. 3. 6. Infra, p. 72.
4. Voet, 23. 2. 8.
5. Voet, 23. 2. 13; Schorer, ubi sup. At the Cape ‘He alone can consent to their marriage’. Van Rooyen v. Werner, ubi sup. at p. 429.
6. Johnson v. McIntyre (1893) 10 S. C. 318. Semble, the marriage cannot in any case be impeached by the minor spouses themselves. Willenburg v. Willenburg (1909) 3 Buch. A. C. 409, per de Villiers C. J.
7. Voet, 23. 2. 15; V. d. L. 1. 3. 6.
8. Voet, 1. 7. 14; V. d. L. 1. 4. 3.
9. Supra, p. 33.
10. From which it follows that a father cannot make a valid gift to a son in power. Gr. 3. 2. 8; Voet, 39. 5. 6; but Schorer, following