Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

$ 608, Divorce.- When the indicted party relies on a dissolution of the first marriage by divorce, he should prove it; or at least bring forward circumstances raising a presumption of it, as explained by the author elsewhere. The validity of a decree being a question of law, one's knowledge whereof is conclusively presumed,' a divorce invalid in law will not avail him. But since men who are duly cautious and otherwise mentally free from blame may lawfully act on facts as they appear, the erroneous belief of a divorce, founded on a proper inquiry conducted with due care, may be shown in defense the same as though it truly existed.

$ 609. Proof of first marriage.- In another work the author has explained at large the proof of marriage in all issues, including polygamy? It is unnecessary, therefore, to enter fully into the subject here.

Fact of marriage. — It is commonly said that, in this issue of polygamy, a fact of marriage, in distinction from the sort of presumptive one which suffices in civil causes, must be shown.' But an examination of the question discloses the principle to be, that, while commonly in civil causes the proof of marriage is based on the presumption of morality and obedience to law, whereby, if parties are or have been cohabiting as husband and wife, they are deemed to be honestly and innocently so, therefore married; whereas, when this presumption is attempted to be invoked in a polygamy case, it comes into conflict with the like presumption as to the second marriage and living together; and so, as presumption nullifies presumption, other proof is re

Reg. v. Dane, 1 Fost. & F. 323. And in evidence as affecting the defendsee Reg. v. Jones, Car. & M. 614; ant's sentence of imprisonment] Arnold v. S., 53 Ga. 574; S. v. Barrow, 71 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 921– 31 La. An. 691; [Parker v. S., supra.] 1182.

1 S. v. Barrow, supra; Com. v. Boyer, 8 Id., SS 1021-1064. 7 Allen, 306; Hull v. S., 7 Tex. Ap. 593. 9 Morris v. Miller, 4 Burr. 2057; & C.

21 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 977- nom. Morres v. Miller, 1 W. Bl. 632; 983.

Birt v. Barlow, 1 Doug. 170; Hem. 3 Crim. Law, I, SS 294-300.

mings v. Smith, 4 Doug. 33; S. v. 4 Davis v. Com., 13 Bush, 318; Rex Hodgskins, 19 Me. 155, (36 Am. D. v. Lolley, Russ. & Ry. 237.

742.) And see Reg. v. Savage, 13 5 Crim. Law, I, SS 301-310.

Cox, C. C. 178; Jackson v. S., 8 Tex. 6 Squire v. S., 46 Ind. 459. ' [But as Ap. 60; Steward v. S., 7 Tex. Ap. 326; to Arkansas, see Russell v. S. (Ark.), Gaines v. Hennen, 24 How. (U. S.) 49 S. W. R. 821. Yet by the same 553. case such honest belief may be shown

2

quired. And the other proof may be presumptive — that is, founded on other presumptions — as well as direct. This conclusion is, in some of our states, aided by statutes which have expressly made circumstantial evidence sufficient in issues of this sort and in others.?

§ 610. Common proofs.- Commonly the proofs of marriage in polygamy cases are :

Record.— The marriage record, or in some circumstances the certificate of the officiating person, supplemented by evidence of the identity of the parties. These proofs are, prima facie, sufficient. Again,

Persons present. The testimony of the officiating clergyman, or of other persons present at the nuptials, is a common method of proof. In special circumstances, the absence of the record may create suspicion; but, in matter of law, it is never indispensable. In aid of the proof of identity, a photographic likeness of the absent party to the marriage may be shown to the witness.?

1 Consult 1 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., Potter, 52 Vt. 33; 8. v. Colby, 51 Vt. SS 931-943, 1039–1046; Reg. v. Wilson, 291; Jackson v. P., 2 Scam. 231; 3 Fost. & F. 119; Buchanan v. S., 55 Moore v. C., 9 Leigh, 639; Maxwell v. Ala. 154; Murphy v. S., 50 Ga. 150; Chapman, 8 Barb. 579; (Reg. v. SimpCom. v. Jackson, 11 Bush, 679, [21 kins, 15 Cox, C. C. 323; P. v. PerriAm. R. 225;] Brown v. S., 52 Ala. 338; man, 72 Mich. 184, 40 N. W. R. 425; Langtry v. S., 30 Ala. 536; Reg. v. Crane v. S., 94 Tenn. 86, 28 S. W. R. Cresswell, 1 Q. B. D. 446, 13 Cox, C. C. 317; S. v. Ulrich, 110 Mo. 350, 19 S. 126; Reg. v. Willshire, 6 Q. B. D. 366, W. R. 656; P. v. Crawford, 69 Hun, 14 Cox, C. C. 541; Scoggins v. S., 32 160, affirmed 133 N. Y. 535, 30 N. E. Ark. 205; Wood v. S., 62 Ga. 406; R. 1148; Faustre v. Com., 92 Ky. 34, (Reg. v. Kay, 16 Cox, C. C. 292.] 17 S. W. R. 189; Patterson v. S., 17

2 1 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 543- Tex. Ap. 102; Foster v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 545; S. v. Armington, 25 Minn. 29; R. 409; Tucker v. P., 122 Ill. 583, 13 Com. v. Johnson, 10 Allen, 196; Case N. E. R. 809; S. v. Melton, 120 N. C. v. Case, 17 Cal. 598.

591, 26 S. E. R. 933; S. v. Davis, 109 3 [Under the Edmunds-Tucker Act N. C. 780, 14 S. E. R. 55.] (see ante, SS 597a, 598a), see U. S. v. 5 Reg. v. Hawes, 1 Den. C. C. 270. Simpson, 4 Utah, 227, 7 Pac. R. 257; 6 1 Bishop, Mar., Div. S., SS 1047– U. S. v. Tenny (Ariz.), 11 Pac. R. 472; 1054; Rex v. Moders, 6 How. St. Tr. U. S. v. Peay, 5 Utah, 263, 14 Pac. R. 273; Reg. v. Manwaring, Dears. & B. 342; U. S. v. Langford, 2 Idaho, 519, 132, 37 Eng. L. & Eq. 609; S. C. nom. 21 Pac. R. 409; U. S. v. Harris, 5 Utah, Reg. v. Mainwaring, 7 Cox, C. C. 192; 436, 17 Pac. R. 75.]

S. v. Goodrich, 14 W. Va. 834; Bird v. 41 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 986- S., 21 Grat. 800; S. v. Clark, 54 N. H. 1020; Rex v. James, Russ. & Ry. 17; 456. Jones v. Jones, 45 Md. 144, 160; S. v. 7 Reg. v. Tolson, 4 Fost. & F. 103.

5

1

$ 608. Divorce.- When the indicted party relies on a dissolution of the first marriage by divorce, he should prove it;? or at least bring forward circumstances raising a presumption of it, as explained by the author elsewhere. The validity of a decree being a question of law, one's knowledge whereof is conclusively presumed, a divorce invalid in law will not avail him. But since men who are duly cautious and otherwise mentally free from blame may lawfully act on facts as they appear, the erroneous belief of a divorce, founded on a proper inquiry conducted with due care, may be shown in defense the same as though it truly existed.

$ 609. Proof of first marriage.--In another work the author has explained at large the proof of marriage in all issues, including polygamy. It is unnecessary, therefore, to enter fully into the subject here.

Fact of marriage. — It is commonly said that, in this issue of polygamy, a fact of marriage, in distinction from the sort of presumptive one which suffices in civil causes, must be shown.' But an examination of the question discloses the principle to be, that, while commonly in civil causes the proof of marriage is based on the presumption of morality and obedience to law, whereby, if parties are or have been cohabiting as husband and wife, they are deemed to be honestly and innocently so, there. fore married; whereas, when this presumption is attempted to be invoked in a polygamy case, it comes into conflict with the like presumption as to the second marriage and living together; and so, as presumption nullifies presumption, other proof is re

Reg. v. Dane, 1 Fost. & F. 323. And in evidence as affecting the defendsee Reg. v. Jones, Car. & M. 614; ant’s sentence of imprisonment] Arnold v. S., 53 Ga. 574; S. v. Barrow, 71 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 92131 La. An. 691; [Parker v. S., supra.] 1182.

1 S. v. Barrow, supra; Com. v. Boyer, 8 Id., SS 1021-1064 7 Allen, 306; Hull v. S., 7 Tex. Ap. 593. 9 Morris v. Miller, 4 Burr. 2057; 8. C.

21 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 977- nom. Morres v. Miller, 1 W. Bl. 632; 983.

Birt v. Barlow, 1 Doug. 170; Hem. 3 Crim. Law, I, SS 294-300.

mings v. Smith, 4 Doug. 33; S. v. * Davis v. Com., 13 Bush, 318; Rex Hodgskins, 19 Me. 155, (36 Am. D. v. Lolley, Russ. & Ry. 237.

742.] And see Reg. v. Savage, 13 5 Crim. Law, I, SS 301-310.

Cox, C. C. 178; Jackson v. S., 8 Tex. 6 Squire v. S., 46 Ind. 459. ` [But as Ap. 60; Steward v. S., 7 Tex. Ap. 326; to Arkansas, see Russell v. S. (Ark.), Gaines v. Hennen, 24 How. (U. S.) 49 S. W. R. 821. Yet by the same 553. case such honest belief may be shown

[ocr errors]

quired. And the other proof may be presumptive — that is, founded on other presumptions — as well as direct.' This conclusion is, in some of our states, aided by statutes which have expressly made circumstantial evidence sufficient in issues of this sort and in others.?

§ 610. Common proofs.- Commonly the proofs of marriage in polygamy cases are 3

Record.— The marriage record, or in some circumstances the certificate of the officiating person, supplemented by evidence of the identity of the parties. These proofs are, prima facie, sufficient. Again,

Persons present. — The testimony of the officiating clergyman, or of other persons present at the nuptials, is a common method of proof. In special circumstances, the absence of the record may create suspicion; but, in matter of law, it is never indispensable. In aid of the proof of identity, a photographic likeness of the absent party to the marriage may be shown to the witness.?

[ocr errors]

4

1 Consult 1 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., Potter, 52 Vt. 33; 8. v. Colby, 51 Vt. SS 931–943, 1039–1046; Reg. v. Wilson, 291; Jackson v. P., 2 Scam. 231; 3 Fost. & F. 119; Buchanan v. S., 55 Moore v. C., 9 Leigh, 639; Maxwell v. Ala. 154; Murphy v. S., 50 Ga. 150; Chapman, 8 Barb. 579; [Reg. v. SimpCom. v. Jackson, 11 Bush, 679, [21 kins, 15 Cox, C. C. 323; P. v. Perri. Am. R. 225;] Brown v. S., 52 Ala. 338; man, 72 Mich. 184, 40 N. W. R. 425; Langtry v. S., 30 Ala. 536; Reg. v. Crane v. S., 94 Tenn. 86, 28 S. W. R. Cresswell, 1 Q. B. D. 446, 13 Cox, C. C. 317; S. v. Ulrich, 110 Mo. 350, 19 S. 126; Reg. v. Willshire, 6 Q. B. D. 366, W. R. 656; P. v. Crawford, 69 Hun, 14 Cox, C. C. 541; Scoggins v. S., 32 160, affirmed 133 N. Y. 535, 30 N. E. Ark. 205; Wood v. S., 62 Ga. 406; R. 1148; Faustre v. Com., 92 Ky. 34, (Reg. v. Kay, 16 Cox, C. C. 292.] 17 S. W. R. 189; Patterson v. S., 17

21 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 543- Tex. Ap. 102; Foster v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 545; 8. v. Armington, 25 Minn. 29; R. 409; Tucker v. P., 122 Ill. 583, 13 Com. v. Johnson, 10 Allen, 196; Case N. E. R. 809; S. v. Melton, 120 N. C. v. Case, 17 Cal. 598.

591, 26 S. E. R. 933; S. v. Davis, 109 3 [Under the Edmunds-Tucker Act N. C. 780, 14 S. E. R. 55.] (see ante, SS 597a, 598a), see U. S. v. 5 Reg. v. Hawes, 1 Den. C. C. 270. Simpson, 4 Utah, 227, 7 Pac. R. 257; 61 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 1047– U. S. v. Tenny (Ariz.), 11 Pac. R. 472; 1054; Rex v. Moders, 6 How. St. Tr. U. S. v. Peay, 5 Utah, 263. 14 Pac. R. 273; Reg. v. Manwaring, Dears. & B. 342; U. S. v. Langford, 2 Idaho, 519, 132, 37 Eng. L. & Eq. 609; s. C. nom. 21 Pac. R. 409; U. S. v. Harris, 5 Utah, Reg. v. Mainwaring, 7 Cox, C. C. 192; 436, 17 Pac. R. 75.]

S. v. Goodrich, 14 W. Va. 834; Bird v. 41 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 986- S., 21 Grat. 800; S. v. Clark, 54 N. H. 1020; Rex v. James, Russ. & Ry. 17; 456. Jones v. Jones, 45 Md. 144, 160; S. v. 7 Reg. v. Tolson, 4 Fost. & F. 103.

Foreign marriage.- Sometimes, where the marriage is foreign, special considerations may arise. But, on these questions, it is best the reader should consult the other work.'

Defendant's admissions.— By the almost universal doctrine, though there is some dissent, the defendant's admission or confession of the marriage, whether domestic or foreign, is good evidence of it in this issue.?

$ 611. Presumption of life. Though the prosecuting power must prove that at the time of the second marriage the former husband or wife was living, it may resort to presumption in aid of the evidence. If, at a previous time not too remote, such party is shown to have been alive, the jury may infer - for the question is for them — the continuance of the life down to the

time of the second marriage. Of course, if the existence of such life could be established at no later period than seven years before the second marriage, the evidence would amount to nothing; if, within the seven years, the presumption of its con

11 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 1065- Car. & K. 782. Contra, P. v. Hum1137; Reg. v. Povey, Dears. 32, 6 Cox, phrey, 7 Johns. 314; Gahagan v. P., 1 C. C. 83; S. v. Goodrich, 14 W. Va. Park. Cr. 378; [S. v. Melton, 120 N. C. 834; Weinberg v. S., 25 Wis. 370; 591, 26 S. E. R. 933; S. v. Plym, 43 Com. v. Kenney, 120 Mass. 387; Reg. Minn, 385, 45 N. W. R. 848; S. v. v. Griffin, 14 Cox, C. C. 308; P. v. Hughes, 35 Kan. 626, 12 Pac. R. 28, 57 Calder, 30 Mich. 85; P. r. Lambert, 5 Am. R. 195; Parker v. S., 77 Ala. 47, Mich. 349, [72 Am. D. 49;] S. v. Kean, 54 Am. R. 43; Tucker v. P., 122 Ill. 10 N. H. 347, [34 Am. D. 162;] Oneale 583, 13 N. E. R. 809; Lowery v. P., 173 v. Com., 17 Grat. 582; (Canale v. P., Ill. 46, 50 N. E. R. 165, 64 Am. St. R. 177 Ill. 219, 52 N. E. R. 310.]

50; Adkisson v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. R. 296, 2 1 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., SS 1057- 30 S. W. R. 357; S. v. Jenkins, 139 1063, 1127; Miles v. U. S., 103 U. S. 304, Mo. 535, 41 S. W. R. 220; Com. v. 311; U. S. v. Miles, 2 Utah, 19; Oneale Caponi, 155 Mass. 534, 30 N. E. R. 82; v. Com., 17 Grat. 582; S. v. Seals, 16 Com. v. Hayden, 163 Mass. 453, 40 N. Ind. 352; Squire u. S., 46 Ind. 459; E. R. 846, 47 Am. St. R. 468, 28 L. R. A. Cameron v. S., 14 Ala. 546, [48 Am. D. 318. See also S. v. Gonce, 79 Mo. 600; 111;] Halbrook v. S., 34 Ark. 511, [36 Dumas v. S., 14 Tex. Ap. 464, 46 Am. Am. R. 17;] Com. v. Henning, 10 R. 241.] Phila. 209; Langtry v. S., 30 Ala. 536; 3 Ante. S 607. Cook v. S., 11 Ga. 53, [56 Am. D. 410;] 41 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., S 953; Murphy v. S., 50 Ga. 150; Reg. v. Reg. v. Lumley, Law R. 1 C. C. 196, Creamer, 10 L Canada, 404; Com. v. 11 Cox, C. C. 274; Squire v. S., 46 Ind. Jackson, 11 Bush, 679, (21 Am. R. 225;] 459; Reg. v. Willshire, 6 Q. B. D. 366, Williams v. S., 54 Ala. 131, [25 Am. 14 Cox, C. C. 541; Gorman v. S., 23 D. 665;) Reg. v. Newton, 2 Moody & Tex. 646; Hull u S., 7 Tex. Ap. 593. R. 503; 8. C. nom. Reg. v. Simmonsto, And see Mitchell v. S., 63 Ga. 222; 1 Car. & K. 164; Rex v. Trueman, 1 [Reg. v. Jones, 15 Cox, C. C. 284; East, P. C. 470; Reg. v. Flaherty, 2 Parker v. S., 77 Ala. 47, 54 Am. R. 43.]

« AnteriorContinuar »