(After stating the foregoing facts.) When a marriage license is returned to the ordinary issuing it by the person performing the marriage ceremony, together with his certificate thereon as to the fact and date of such marriage, it is the duty of the ordinary tо record the license and certificate in a book kept by him for this purpose. Code, § 53-201. After such license, with the certificate thereon, has been duly reсorded, it shall be forwarded by the ordinary to the State Board of Health, to be рermanently retained by that Board. § 53-311.
In this case the jury’s verdict finding that there had been no valid marriage between the parties resulted in the denial of the wife’s claim for alimony. The wife had introduced in evidence a certified copy of a marriage license with a certificate of a marriage performed by the Ordinаry of Toombs County. The Code, § 38-601, provides that proof of records may be made upon the certificate of any public officer as to the records pertaining to their respective offices.
The defendant did not attack the record in the office of the Ordinary of Toombs County, which showed a ceremoniаl marriage between the parties. No evidence was offered to impeach such record. The public record of a ceremonial marriage is conclusive evidence of such marriage, in the absence óf a timely direct attack on such record, which attack must be supported by proper proof.
Pope
v.
U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
200
Ga.
69 (
In Pope v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra, this court held: “The testimony upon which the defendants rely as raising a jury question and preventing the direction of a verdict was not offered under any special pleadings for the purpose of amending or altering the execution dockets upon proof of entries fraudulently ot wrongfully made, but apparently was offered only to contradict generаlly the written record. Hence, as to such testimony we are not required to do more than to rule, as we do here, that this parol evidence under the state оf the pleadings is without probative value as *367 against the clear and unambiguous written evidence shown by the execution dockets, and that to impeach these public records it would be first necessary to seek such relief by approрriate and timely special pleadings making a direct attack thereon, tо which proceeding the clerk of the superior court, as the keeper of the-records, should be made a party defendant by the defendant in execution, . . now a party to the present equitable proceeding.”
It follows that thе testimony relied upon by the defendant in this case was without probative value tо contradict or disprove the written record of a ceremonial marriage between the parties, and there was no evidence to support thе verdict finding for the defendant on the ground that there had been no marriage .between the parties.
In
Pritchett
v. Ellis, 201
Ga.
809 (
The amended ground of the motion for new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, does not-require any ruling, since the evidence, if material, may be introduced upon another trial.
Judgment reversed.