nections. What is technically termed a fact of marriage, in distinction from proofs by cohabitation and repute, must, except where statutes have otherwise provided, be shown.1 Ordinarily, and by most opinions, confessions are admissible to the marriage, as to the other parts of the case. But they must be the confessions of the particular party, not of the other party, or of the particeps criminis.3

§ 688. The witnesses.-The general rules concerning the witnesses in criminal cases apply in this issue. Thus,

Husband and wife.- Under the common law the husband or wife cannot testify against the other, either to the illicit conduct or the fact of marriage. Not even can the married partner of the unindicted participant in the adultery be admitted to prove it. And if several persons are proceeded against for a conspiracy to charge the wife of one of them with adultery, she cannot be a witness." So far is this doctrine carried that the wife has even been held incompetent to prefer on oath a complaint before a magistrate for the husband's adultery. In some of our states, by statute, the law is otherwise, and the prosecution can be only on her complaint;" though, after it is commenced, it can be carried on without

11 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., §§ 442, 482 et seq.; Wood v. S., 62 Ga. 406; Com. v. Holt, 121 Mass. 61; P. v. Bennett, 39 Mich. 208; Com. v. Belgard, 5 Gray, 95; [S. v. Behrman, 114 N. C. 797, 19 S. E. R. 220, 25 L. R. A. 449; Webb v. S., 24 Tex. Ap. 164, 5 S. W. R. 651; Williams v. S., 86 Ga. 548, 12 S. E. R. 743; Owens v. S., 94 Ala. 97, 10 S. R. 669; Banks v. S., 96 Ala. 78, 11 S. R. 404; Lord v. S., 17 Neb. 526, 23 N. W. R. 507; S. v. Manley, 95 N. C. 661.]

21 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., §§ 497502, 544, 545; ante, § 609; Cameron v. S., 14 Ala. 546, [48 Am. D. 111;] S. v. Medbury, 8 R. I. 543; [Boger v. S., 19 Tex. Ap. 195; P v. Imes (Mich.), 68 N. W. R. 157; Owers v. S., 94 Ala. 97, 10 S. R. 669.]

73; S. v. Armstrong, 4 Minn. 335; [Thomas v. S., 14 Tex. Ap. 70.]

6 S. v. Welch, 26 Me. 30, [45 Am. D. 94;] S. v. Gardner, 1 Root, 485; Cotton v. S., 62 Ala. 12; Com. v. Gordon, 2 Brews. 569; Com. v. Sparks, 7 Allen, 534. See Crim. Pro., I, § 1019; [Com. v. Mosier, 135 Pa. St. 221, 19 Atl. R. 943.]

7S. v. Burlingham, 15 Me. 104; Crim. Pro., I, § 1019.

8 S. v. Berlin, 42 Me. 572; Com. v. Jailer, 1 Grant (Pa.), 218. See Crim. Pro., I, §§ 230-232; [P., Long v. Magerstadt (Ill.), 32 Chic. Leg. N. 35.

9 Crim. Pro., I, § 232; S. v. Wilson, 22 Iowa, 364; P. v. Knapp, 42 Mich. 267, [36 Am. R. 438; S. v. Mahan, 81 Iowa, 121, 46 N. W. R. 855; P. v. Payment, 109 Mich. 559, 67 N. W. R.

3 Com. v. Thompson, 99 Mass. 444. 689; P. v. Stokes, 71 Cal. 263, 12 Pac. See S. v. Bowe, 61 Me. 171.

4 Crim. Pro., I, SS 1135-1187.

R. 71; P. v. Isham (Mich.), 67 N. W.
R. 819; Boyer v. S., 19 Tex. Ap. 91;

Id., § 1151; Mills v. U. S., 1 Pin. S. v. Coffee, 39 Mo. Ap. 56; Bush

her presence or consent,' and she need not go before the grand jury. Beyond this, we have statutes under which it is com petent for husband and wife to testify against each other "in a criminal prosecution for an offense committed by one against the other;" and adultery is deemed to be within the provision:3 Particeps criminis.— A mistress is not, like a wife, incompetent; so that an unindicted particeps criminis may be a witness." But this witness is an accomplice within the rule7 requiring the testimony to be corroborated.

§ 689. Province of jury.-The effect of the testimony, equally with its credibility, is, as in other cases, for the jury. It was therefore error for the court on a trial for fornication to instruct them that if they believed the parties were found in bed together, the room-door closed, no one else present, the woman a prostitute, and the defendant in the habit of visiting her, they were bound to find him guilty. Conclusive as the evidence was, the jury, not the court, should draw the inference."

§ 690. Marriage not proved (Fornication).— Where fornication is indictable, and the proof of the marriage fails, there may be a conviction for this lighter offense," if the allegations of the indictment are adequate."

v. Workman, 64 Iowa, 205, 19 N. W. R. 210; S. v. Briggs, 68 Iowa, 416, 27 N. W. R. 358; S. v. Donovan, 61 Iowa, 278, 16 N. W. R. 130; P. v. Dalrymple, 55 Mich. 519, 22 N. W. R. 20; S. v. Henke, 58 Iowa, 457, 12 N. W. R. 477; S. v. Stout, 71 Iowa, 343, 32 N. W. R. 372; S. v. Maas, 83 Iowa, 46, 49 N. W. R. 1037; Filer v. Smith, 96 Mich. 347, 55 N. W. R. 999, 35 Am. St. R. 663; Re Smith, 2 Okl. 153, 37 Pac. R. 1099.]

IS. v. Baldy, 17 Iowa, 39; [S. v. Briggs, 68 Iowa, 416, 27 N. W. R. 358.] 2 S. v. Dingee, 17 Iowa, 232.

3 Roland v. S., 9 Tex. Ap. 277; Morrill v. S., 5 Tex. Ap. 447; S. v. Bennett, 31 Iowa, 24; [Bayliss v. P., 46 Mich. 221; S. v. Brecht, 41 Minn. 50, 42 N. W. R. 602; Wilson v. Daboll, 104 Mich. 155, 62 N. W. R. 293; S. v. Smith, 108 Iowa, 440, 79 N. W. R. 115; Com. v. Clifford, 145 Mass. 97, 13 N. E. R. 345.]

4 Crim. Pro., I, § 1154; Dennis v. Crittenden, 42 N. Y. 542.

5 Crim. Pro., I, § 1019; Rutter v. S., 4 Tex. Ap. 57. And see Boothe v. S., 4 Tex. Ap. 202.

6 S. v. Colby, 51 Vt. 291; P. v. Knapp, 42 Mich. 267; Ketchingman v. S., 6 Wis. 426. See Spencer v. S., 31 Tex. 64.

7 Crim. Pro., I, §§ 1156-1175.

8 Merritt v. S., 10 Tex. Ap. 402.
9 Ellis v. S., 20 Ga. 438.

10 S. v. Cowell, 4 Ire. 231; Crim. Law, I, § 795; Respublica v. Roberts, 2 Dall. 124, 1 Yeates, 6; S. v. Hinton, 6 Ala. 864. Otherwise now in Alabama. Smitherman v. S., 27 Ala. 23.

11 Post, SS 692, 693; Com. v. Murphy, 2 Allen, 163.

[NOTE-The following cases are cited as examples of variance in proof: Randle v. S., 12 Tex. Ap. 250; Bevins v. S., 12 Tex. Ap. 394; Henderson v. S., 105 Ala. 139, 16 S. R. 927.]

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 evidently 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-crim

1 Ante, § 654a.

2 Caudrey's Case, 5 Co. 1a, 9a; 1 Burn, Ec. Law, 132 (refers to Gibs. Codex, 1032).

3 Burn, Just., Bastards, iv.

4 Dalton, Just., ch. 11; Burn, Just., Bastards; 18 Eliz., ch. 3. etc.; Hardy v. Atherton, 7 Q. B. D. 264, 269.

5 S. v. Rahl, 33 Tex. 76; Pollard v. Lyon, 91 U. S. 225.

6 S. v. Way, 6 Vt. 311; S. v. Cox, N. C. Term R. 165; Com. v. Jones, 2 Grat. 555.

P., 82 Ill. 104; S. v. Hickerson, 72 N. C. 421; Kolbe v. P., 85 IIL 336; S. v. Sullivan, 12 R. L 212; Petition of Canning, 11 R. I. 257; Mahoney v. Crowley, 36 Me. 486; Smith v. Lint, 37 Me. 546; Hinman v. Taylor, 2 Conn. 357; S. v. Worthingtham, 23 Minn. 528; S. v. Becht, 23 Minn. 1; [Cham. bers v. S., 45 Ark. 56; Nangatuck v. S., 53 Conn. 523, 3 Atl. R. 550; P. v. Ogden, 10 Ill. Ap. 226; P. v. Stevens, 19 Ill. Ap. 405; Reynolds v. P., 115 Ill. 421, 17 N. E. R. 909; Scharf v. P.,

7 Crim. Law, I, §§ 32, 33; ante, 134 Ill. 240, 24 N. E. R. 761; Harper

SS 467-470.

8 Mann v. P., 35 Ill. 467; Lewis v.

v. S., 101 Ind. 109; S. v. McGlothlen, 56 Iowa, 544, 9 N. W. R. 893; S. v.

inal.1 In a few, the indictment as for crime is permitted, or permitted for a refusal to support the child.2

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

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

The

§ 692. Joint or separate.- In fornication, plainly, as a general rule, the parties may, the same as in adultery,2 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 adultery are applicable to this, except as to the allegation of marriage.

5

§ 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," 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

Nierle, 45 Neb. 105, 63 N. W. R. 382; P. v. Schildwachter, 87 Hun, 363, 34 N. Y. Supp. 352; Gaunt v. S., 50 N. J. L. 490, 14 Atl. R. 600; S. v. Giles, 103 N. C. 391, 9 S. E. R. 433; S. v. Hackett, 14 R. L. 162; Crow v. Jordon, 49 Ohio St. 655, 32 N. E. R. 750; S. v. Bunker, 7 S. D. 639, 65 N. W. R. 33; Swisher v. Malone, 31 W. Va. 442, 7 N. E. R. 439; Knight v. Morse, 54 Vt. 432; McClellan v. S., 66 Wis. 335, 28 N. W. R. 347; Humphrey v. S., 78 Wis. 569, 47 N. W. R. 836.

1Huff v. S., supra; Davis v. S., supra; Heikes v. Com., 26 Pa. St. 513. 2 Ante, § 670.

3 S. v. Cox, N. C. Term R. 165. Delano v. S., 66 Ind. 348; Robeson

v. S., 3 Heisk. 266; S. v. Dunn, 26 Ark. 34, 35; S. v. Lashley, 84 N. C. 754; S. v. Johnson, 69 Ind. 85; [Hutchinson v. S., 19 Neb. 262, 27 N. W. R. 113.]

5 Ante, §§ 669–676.

"In Texas, the corresponding words are "both being married." Wells v. S., 9 Tex. Ap. 160.

7 Mass. Gen. Stats., ch. 165, § 8. The language of the Revised Statutes was the same. R. S., ch. 130, § 5.

8 Com. v. Murphy, 2 Allen, 163; [Eshelman v. P., 52 Ill. Ap. 621.] 9 Wells v. S., supra; Hopper v. S., 19 Ark. 143.

10 For example, see Crim. Pro., I, S$ 614, 615, 617, 638.