State v. Wylde
| Decision Date | 29 April 1892 |
| Citation | 110 N.C. 500,15 S.E. 5 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | State v. Wylde. |
Bigamy—Proof of Former Marriage—Appeal in Forma Pauperis—Affidavit.
1. On an indictment for bigamy, defendant's admissions of a prior marriage in a foreign country are sufficient, with or without proof of cohabitation or other corroborating circumstances, to establish the marriage.
2. An affidavit for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, which does not state the application to have been made in good faith, is fatally defective, under section 1235 of the Code.
Appeal from superior court, Guilford county; Whitaker, Judge.
Indictment against George H. Wylde for bigamy. From a judgment of conviction defendant appeals. Dismissed.
Dillard & King and D. Schenck, Jr., for appellant.
The Attorney General, J. E. Boyd, and L. M. Scott, for the State.
There are several exceptions to the evidence, as well as exceptions for failure to give the prayers for special instructions. But the point rersed by all the exceptions is in effect that the first marriage, which was alleged to have taken place in England, could not be shown by the admissions of the defendant, nor by proof of cohabitation and the admissions, but that the proof must be by an eyewitness of the ceremony, or a certified copy of the registration of the marriage, with proof that the minister officiating was authorized by the laws of England to administer the sacraments and solemnize the marriage. The court charged that the admissions of the defendant, standing alone, would not be sufficient evidence of marriage, but that such admissions, together with the proof offered in this case of the parties starting to chapel with the avowed purpose of being married, their return, saying they had been, and their subsequent open and continued cohabitation as man and wife, would be sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to establish marriage. While some authority may be found in other states to sustain the charge of the court, we think it more favorable to the defendant than by the best precedents he was entitled to have. But of this the defendant cannot complain. Proof by an eyewitness of the ceremony, with proof of the authority of the minister under the law of the place to solemnize it, which the defendant contends is requisite, would be certainly plenary proof. It is not, however, the only proof. The circumstances in proof here of the parties starting off to be married, their return as from a marriage, and subsequent open cohabitation as man and wife, were certainly strongly corroborative of the admissions of the defendant, but are not indispensable. We think the true rule is laid in Miles v. U. S., 103 U. S. 304, where it is held, approving Reg. v. Simmonsto, 1 Car. & K. 164, that, "on an indictment for bigamy, the first marriage may be proved by the admissions of the prisoner, and it is for the jury to determine whether what he said was an admission that he had been legally married according to the laws of the country where the marriage was solemnized." The court—of itself, high authority—cited as also sustaining this view: Reg. v. Upton, cited in 1 Russ. Crimes, 318; Duchess of Kingston's Case, 20 How. State Tr. 355; Truman's Case, 1 East, P. C. 470; Cavford's Case, 7 Me. 57; Ham's Case, 11 Me. 391; State v. Libbey, 44 Me. 469; State v. Hilton, 3 Rich. Law, 434; State v. Britton, 4 McCord, 256; Warner v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 95; Norwood's Case, 1 East, P.C. 470; Com. v. Murtagh. l Ashm. 272; Reg. v. Newton, 2 Moody & R. 503; State v. McDonald, 25 Mo. 176; Wolverton v. State, 16 Ohio, 173; State v. Seals, 16 Ind. 352; Squire v. State, 46 Ind. 459; Arnold v. State, 53 Ga. 574; Cameron v. State, 14 Ala. 546; Brown v. State, 52 Ala. 338; Williams v. State, 44 Ala. 24; Com. v. Jackson, 11 Bush, 679. The court then goes on to say (103 D. S. 312) that the declarations of the defendant" appear to have been deliberately and repeatedly made, and under such circumstances as tended to show that they had reference to a formal mar-riage contract, " and held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corporation Commission v. Cannon Mfg. Co.
... ... increase of rates on electric power supplied by petitioner to ... its customers within the state, and on the alleged ground ... that the existent rates were insufficient to afford ... petitioner a reasonable return on a fair value of the ... Cement Co. v. Phillips, ... 182 N.C. 437, 109 S.E. 257; Gilbert v. Shingle Co., ... 167 N.C. 286, 83 S.E. 337; State v. Wylde, 110 N.C ... 500, 15 S.E. 5; Milling Co. v. Finlay, 110 N.C. 411, ... 15 S.E. 4 ... And ... first, on the motion to ... ...
-
Williams v. Bailey
...instances, while dismissing the appeal as improvidently taken, expressed its opinion upon the proposition of law involved. State v. Wylde, 110 N.C. 503, 15 S.E. 5. But that is a matter of discretion, and besides it impracticable, in a case like this, involving most serious issues of fact as......
-
Burgess v. Trevathan, 18
...103 S.E. 922; Taylor v. Johnson, 171 N.C. 84, 87 S.E. 981; Jester v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 131 N.C. 54, 42 S.E. 447; State v. Wylde, 110 N.C. 500, 15 S.E. 5; Guilford County v. Georgia Co., 109 N.C. 310, 13 S.E. This question is as follows: Where the owner of an insured automobile bri......
-
State v. Stafford
...198 N.C. 613, 152 S.E. 926; State v. Smith, 152 N.C. 842, 67 S.E. 965; State v. Atkinson, 141 N.C. 734, 53 S.E. 228; State v. Wylde, 110 N.C. 500, 15 S.E. 5; v. Duncan, 107 N.C. 818, 12 S.E. 382; State v. Morgan, 77 N.C. 510; State v. Payne, 93 N.C. 612. Speaking to the subject in State v. ......