Muthusami Aiyar, J.

1. The question for determination in this case is whether the contract sued on is a marriage brokerage contract and if so whether it is valid. There is no reason to think that the contract in question is not a contract as found by the court below to assist the defendant for reward in procuring a wife. The point which the question then comes to is whether the rule of public policy which invalidates marriage brokerage contracts in England is applicable to the case before us. The reason of that rule as stated in Hall v Thynne Show, P. C. 76, which went to the House of Lords is that it is conducive to public good that marriages should be procured and promoted by the mediation of relatives and friends and not by hirelings. On principle this rule appears to be of general application and not of a special or conventional character. Is there anything then in the usage of this country to preclude its operation? As far as I am aware there is nothing to the contrary. On the other hand the interference of hirelings in bringing about marriages is regarded with disapproval. It is no doubt true that the Asura form of marriage which involves a money payment is valid accor