chinham v preston marriage contrary to the late Act be void quoad settlement  and the woman can be remove as wife SC burr SC motion to quash a order of  session confirm a order of two justice for the removal of Edward young and  Rebecca his wife and a young child from Preston to Chinbam as the place of the  husband last legal settlement it appear that Edward young be since the late  Act v marry to Rebecca when he be under age and without banns or licence  wherefore it be argue that she can not be remove as his lawful wife the  marriage be void on the other band it be contend that the marriage be not void  but only voidable quoad the settlement of the party Lord Mansfield CJ there be  this plain distinction between thing void and voidable where the law make a  thing void for the benefit of the party concern they may wave that advantage  if they please but the marriage Act be avow make against both the contract  party foster I add and against the innocent child too and therefore they shall  not wave the disability of it at their own option the marriage be void and  null to all intent and purpose even though the party shall afterward agree to  it wherever the fact appear direct contrary to the statute u order quash per  tot cur as to Rebecca and the child confirm as to the pauper Edward v g c see  g c and g c u so a marriage by licence between two illegitimate child be minor  without consent of parent or guardian be hold void and Lord Mansfield say  before the Geo be pass by the law then in be if a man and woman make a  contract in private per word de present time and keep it a secret and  afterward there be a public marriage solemnized by either of they and issue  bear of that marriage nevertheless the private contract take place of the  subsequent marriage because the canon law compel a strict observance of these  contract and decree they to be solemnized in the face of the church r v  Hodnett I TR wield v chamberlain show r v Bram pton east S p and though it be  at one time think that the marriage of a illegitimate minor with consent of  the putative father be valid r v Edmonton Bott ed yet in the case of Horner  and Liddiard in the consistorial court where consent have be give by the  mother of the bastard sir W Scott decide that in such a case consent can only  be give by a guardian lawful appoint by the court of chancery and without it  the marriage be a nullity report by dr croak I Nolans poor l ed Chetw burn  just ed this decision be confirm in K  B on argument by three judge grose I  diss Priestley v Hugh east the consent now requisite be regulate by g c S as  to publication of banns see r v billinghurst m S and note