Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER XL.

FORNICATION AND CRIMINAL BASTARDY.

$ 691. What.— Fornication differs from adultery in not requiring the element of a marriage. Bastardy, also, does not require this element, though it may be committed on a married woman the same as on an unmarried. It is the carnal act which results in the birth of an illegitimate child.

At common law.— Like adultery,' fornication and bastardy were punishable under the English ecclesiastical law. But, in the words of Burn, “it is no offense at common law to get a bastard child, and consequently not punishable.”: There were early English statutes under which, while the father of the bastard was compelled to support it, he might also be whipped, and the mother imprisoned, by order of magistrates;' but ovidently they are of no force with us. A fortiori, a single act of fornication, whether inducing pregnancy or not, is not indictable under the common law of our states. But,

Under statutes.- In some of our states there are statutes making fornication indictable. Bastardy, in most or all of them, may be redressed by proceedings, some in the criminal form, to compel the father to contribute to the child's support; but they are generally in effect civil, or only quasi-crimi Ante, & 654a.

P., 82 II. 104; S. v. Hickerson, 72 2 Caudrey's Case, 5 Co. 1a, 9a; 1 N. C. 421; Kolbe v. P., 85 IIL 336; S. Burn, Ec. Law, 132 (refers to Gibs. v. Sullivan, 12 R. I 212; Petition of Codex, 1032).

Canning, 11 R. I. 257; Mahoney v. 3 Burn, Just., Bastards, iv.

Crowley, 36 Me. 486; Smith v. Lint, 4 Dalton, Just., ch. 11; Burn, Just., 37 Me. 546; Hinman v. Taylor, 2 Conn. Bastards; 18 Eliz., ch. 3. etc.; Hardy 357; S. v. Worthingtham, 23 Minn. V. Atherton, 7 Q. B. D. 264, 269. 528; S. v. Becht, 23 Minn. 1; (Cham.

5 S. v. Rahl, 33 Tex. 76; Pollard v. bers v. S., 45 Ark. 56; Nangatuck v. Lyon, 91 U. S. 225.

S., 53 Conn. 523, 3 Atl. R. 550; P. v. 6 S. v. Way, 6 Vt. 311; 8. v. Cox, Ogden, 10 Ill. Ap. 226; P. v. Stevens, N. C. Term R. 165; Com. v. Jones, 2 19 Ill. Ap. 405; Reynolds v. P., 115 Grat. 555.

III. 421, 17 N. E. R. 909; Scharf v. P., 7 Crim. Law, I, SS 32, 33; ante, 134 Ill. 240, 24 N. E. R. 761; Harper SS 467-470.

v. S., 101 Ind. 109; $. v. MoGlothlen, 8 Mann v. P., 35 Ill. 467; Lewis v. 56 Iowa, 544, 9 N. W. R. 893; S v.

a

inal.' In a few, the indictment as for crime is permitted, or permitted for a refusal to support the child.?

$ 691a. Procedure in bastardy. The indictments and evidence in criminal bastardy are so local to a few states, and involve so little of the general criminal law, that the subject

Severson, 78 Iowa, 683, 43 N. W. R. 1 Cox, C. C. 203; Reg. v. Ferrall, 2 533; S. v. Johnson, 89 Iowa, 1, 56 N. Den. C. C. 51, 4 Cox, C. C. 431, 1 Eng. W. R. 404; Gleason v. McPherson Co. L. & Eq. 575; [P. v. Colegrove, 63 Com'rs, 30 Kan. 53, 2 Pac. R. 644; Hun, 635, 18 N. Y. Supp. 370; S. v. Hodge v. Sawyer, 85 Me. 285, 27 Atl. Benton, 113 N. C. 655, 18 S. E. R. 657; R. 153; S. v. Nichols, 29 Minn. 357, 13 Myers v. Stafford, 114 N. C. 689, 19 S. N. W. R. 153; Jones v. S., 14 Neb. E. R. 764; S. v. Cagle, 114 N. C. 835, 210, 14 N. W. R. 901; Altschuler v. 19 S. E. R. 766; S. v. Wynne, 116 N. C. Algaza, 16 Neb. 631, 21 N. W. R. 404; 981, 21 S. E. R. 35; McCombs v. S., 66 Strickler v. Grass, 32 Neb. 811, 49 N. Ga. 580.] W. R. 804; Olson v. Peterson, 33 Neb. 3 Locke v. S., 3 Kelly, 534; Nor358, 50 N. W. R. 155; Munro v. Calla- wood v. S., 45 Md. 68; Huff v. S., 29 han, 41 Neb. 849, 60 N. W. R. 97; Ga. 424; Walker v. S., 5 Ga. 491; Stoppert v. Nierle, 45 Neb. 105, 63 N. [Miller v. S., 110 Ala. 69, 30 S. R. 392; W. R. 382; Ford v. Smith, 62 N. H. Robinson v. S., 68 Md. 617, 13 Atl. R. 419; Leconey v. Overseer of the Poor, 378; Gorman v. Com., 124 Pa. St. 536, 43 N. J. L 409; $. v. Crouse, 86 N. C. 17 Atl. R. 26.] 617; S 0. Edwards, 110 N. C. 571, 14 4 S. v. Read, 45 Iowa, 469; S. v. Britt, S. E. R. 889; S. v. Bowen, 14 R. I. 165.) 78 N. C. 439; Davis v. S., 58 Ga.

1 Cummings v. Hodgdon, 13 Met. 170; Laney v. S., 109 Ala. 34, 19 S. R. 246, 248; Hyde v. Chapin, 2 Cush. 77, 531: Benton v. Scarr, 58 Conn. 285, 79; Graham v. Monsergh, 22 Vt. 543; 20 Atl. R. 450; West v. S., 84 Ga. 527, Holcomb v. P., 79 II, 409; Blanken- 10 S. E. R. 731; Raney v. S, 127 Ind. ship v. S., 4 Bax. 383; Crawford v. S., 243, 26 N. E. R. 818; La Mott v. S., 128 7 Bax. 41; Baker v. S., 47 Wis. 111; Ind. 123, 27 N. E. R. 346; S. v. Lavin, [Ex parte Charleston, 107 Ala. 688, 18 80 Iowa, 555, 46 N. W. R. 553; S. v. S. R. 224; Miller v. S., 110 Ala. 69, 20 Borie, 79 Iowa, 605, 44 N. W. R. 824; S. R. 392; E. N. E. v. S., 25 Fla. 268, 6 Overlock v. Hall, 81 Me. 348, 17 Atl, S. R. 58; P. v. Harty, 49 Mich. 492, 13 R. 169; Mann v. Maxwell, 83 Me. N. W. R. 829; P. v. Phalen, 49 Mich. 146, 21 Atl. R. 844; Neff v. S., 57 492, 13 N. W. R. 830; Baker v. S., 65 Md. 385; Odewald v. Woodsum, 142 Wis. 50, 26 N. W. R. 167; Van Tassel Mass. 512, 8 N. E. R. 347; Bowers v. v. S., 59,Wis. 351, 18 N. W. R. 328; Wood, 143 Mass. 182, 9 N. E. R. 534; Hodgson v. Nickell, 69 Wis. 308, 34 N. Scott v. Donovan, 153 Mass. 378, 26 W. R. 118.

N. E. R. 871; Francis v. Rosa, 151 ? Grogan v. S., 58 Ga. 196; Shiver v. Mass. 532, 24 N. E. R. 1024; Hamil. S., 23 Ga. 230; Locke v. S., 3 Kelly, ton v. P., 46 Mich. 186, 9 N. W. R. 534; 8. v. Phelps, 9 Md. 21; Bake v. 247; P. v. Kaminsky, 73 Mich. 637, 8., 21 Md. 422; Norwood v. S., 45 Md. 41 N. W. R. 833; P. v. Keefer, 103 68; Root v. S., 10 Gill & J. 374. In Mich. 83, 61 N. W. R. 338; S. v. Tipton, England, disobedience to a judicial 15 Mont. 74, 38 Pac. R. 222; Denham order requiring the father of a bas- v. Watson, 24 Neb. 779, 40 N. W. R. tard child to pay money for its sup- 308; Dukeheart v. Coughman, 36 Neb. port is indictable. Reg. v. Marchant, 412 54 N. W. R. 680; Stoppert v.

[ocr errors]

2

will be dismissed with a simple reference to a few cases. The same may be said of the place of the indictment and trial.'

$ 692. Joint or separate.— In fornication, plainly, as a general rule, the parties may, the same as in adultery,' be indicted either separately or together, at the election of the pleader.'

Indictment. The indictment will vary with the statutory terms, which it must duly cover. The elucidations of that for adulterys are applicable to this, except as to the allegation of marriage.

$ 693. Whether negative marriage.- Under special statutory terms,- for example, "if a man commits fornication with a single woman, each of them shall be punished,” etc.,' — the indictment has been required to negative a marriage. And, to make a prima facie case, some proof should be introduced to this averment. It is not absolutely clear that, by a true application of the rules of pleading on statutes,to this negation of marriage ought to be held essential even on these special words. In the absence of such words, plainly, in principle, a marriage between the parties to a carnal act is matter of defense, lying specially within the knowledge and power of the defendant, to be shown, if it exists, by him at the trial, and so not required to be negatived in the indictment. An illustration precisely in point occurs in rape. If the woman is the man's wife, no personal penetration of her by him, whatever

10

Nierle, 45 Neb. 105, 63 N. W. R. 382; v. S., 3 Heisk. 266; S. v. Dunn, 26 P. v. Schildwachter, 87 Hun, 363, 34 Ark. 34, 35; S. v. Lashley, 84 N. C. N. Y. Supp. 352; Gaunt v. S., 50 N. J. 754; 8. v. Johnson, 69 Ind. 85; (HutchL. 490, 14 Atl. R. 600; S. v. Giles, 103 inson v. S., 19 Neb. 262, 27 N. W. R. N. C. 391, 9 S. E. R. 433; S. v. Hackett, 113.] 14 R. I. 162; Crow v. Jordon, 49 Ohio 5 Ante, SS 669-676. St. 655, 32 N. E. R. 750; S. v. Bunker, 6 In Texas, the corresponding words 7 S. D. 639, 65 N. W. R. 33; Swisher are “both being married.” Wells v. v. Malone, 31 W. Va. 442, 7 N. E. R. S., 9 Tex. Ap. 160. 439; Knight v. Morse, 54 Vt. 432; 7 Mass. Gen. Stats., ch. 165, § 8. The McClellan v. S., 66 Wis. 335, 28 N. W. language of the Revised Statutes R. 347; Humphrey v. S., 78 Wis. 569, was the same. R. S., ch. 130, $ 5. 47 N. W. R. 836.

8 Com. v. Murphy, 2 Allen, 163; 1 Huff v. S., supra; Davis v. S., [Eshelman v. P., 52 Ill. Ap. 621.) supra; Heikes v. Com., 26 Pa. St. 513. 9 Wells v. S., supra; Hopper v. S., 2 Ante, 8 670.

19 Ark. 143. 3 S. v. Cox, N. C. Term R. 165. 10 For example, see Crim. Pro., I, • Delano v. S., 66 Ind. 348; Robeson SS 614, 615, 617, 638.

the circumstances, will constitute the offense;' yet the indictment does not negative a marriage with her. And so in fornication, in the absence of special statutory terms, is the little authority which we have.

$ 694. Other questions.- In most other respects this offense is identical with adultery, treated of in the last chapter. And so the elucidations there will render unnecessary anything fur ther here.

1 Crim. Law, IL § 1119.

Stephens, 63 Ind. 542; Bicknell, Crim. 2 Crim. Pro., II, SS 949, 956.

Pr. 446-448. See S. « Lashley, 84 N. C. 'S. v. Gooch, 7 Blackf. 468; & . 754

495

OHAPTER XLI.

LIVING IN ADULTERY OR FORNICATION,

$ 695. Introduction. 696-698. Law of the offense.

699–709. The procedure $ 695. Order of chapter.- We shall consider: I The law of the offense; II. The procedure.

I. THE LAW OF THE OFFENSE. $696. Statutes - Relations of subject. The subject of this chapter is a sort of continuation of the discussions of the last two. It is adultery and fornication repeated. The statutes are in terms too diversified to render profitable a minute discussion. They contain such expressions as “living together and carnal intercourse with each other," "habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together,” I “live together as husband and wife without being married,” “ live together in adultery or fornication,”: “living together in unlawful cohabitation."4

$ 697. Elements of offense.- None of these statutes are violated by a mere single act of carnal commerce, and it will not be otherwise though the act transpires in pursuance of a prior arrangement. Nor will mere occasional acts, in private, suffice. Still, it is legally possible for a “living together in

1 Edwards V. S., 10 Tex. Ap. 25; * Carotti v. S., 42 Miss. 334, [97 Am. Parks v. S., 4 Tex. Ap. 134. For D. 465.] changes in the Texas provisions, see 6 McLeland v. S., 25 Ga. 477; [Bird Collum v. S., 10 Tex. Ap. 708. And V. S., 27 Tex. Ap. 559, 11 S. W. R. 641; see Wolff v. S., 6 Tex. Ap. 195; [Gran. Thomas v. S., 28 Tex. Ap. 300, 12 S. berry v. S., 61 Miss. 440.)

W. R. 1098.] 2 Hopper v. S., 19 Ark. 143; Sulli. 6 Smith v. S., 39 Ala. 554; [Turney van v. S., 32 Ark, 187; [Pinson v. S., v. S., 60 Ark. 259, 29 S. W. R. 843.] 28 Fla. 735, 9 S. R. 706.]

? Wright v. S., 8 Blackf. 385; Searls 3 Hall v. S., 53 Ala. 463; Quartemas v. P., 13 Ill. 597; Collins v. S., 14 Ala. v. S., 48 Ala. 269; [Powell v. S., 12 608; Carotti v. S., 42 Miss. 334; Col. Tex. Ap. 238; Van Dolsen v. S., 1 Ind. lum v. S., 10 Tex. Ap. 708; Swancoat Ap 108, 27 N. E. R. 440.]

V. S., 4 Tex. Ap. 105; Parks v. S., 4

« AnteriorContinuar »