LaNctot v. State

• Decision Date: 10 December 1897
• Citation: 98 Wis. 136,73 N.W. 575
• Parties: LANCTOT v. STATE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

98 Wis. 136

73 N.W. 575

LANCTOT

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 10, 1897.

Error to circuit court, Bayfield county; John K. Parish, Judge.

Joseph Lanctot was convicted of adultery, and brings error. Reversed.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of adultery. It was alleged against him that, having a lawful wife (one Octavia Arvasa) living, he had contracted a formal marriage with one Vienna Michaud, and was living with her in unlawful cohabitation. Two witnesses testified to having been present at a marriage ceremony between the plaintiff in error and Octavia Arvasa; that the ceremony was solemnized by a priest in a church in the province of Quebec, Canada, and was followed by cohabitation and the birth of children; and that Octavia is still alive. The defendant afterwards came to this state, leaving Octavia in Quebec, and made a formal marriage, at Ashland, with one Vienna Michaud, with whom he afterwards cohabited as his wife. At the close of the evidence on the part of the state, the plaintiff in error moved for a dismissal of the action, on the ground that the state had failed to prove the alleged former marriage. The motion was denied. The defendant then testified, denying that he was the man Joseph Lanctot, or that he had been married to Octavia Lanctot, and testified that his true name was John C. Harvey. One witness identified him as John C. Harvey. The principal burden of the trial was on the question of the identity of the defendant with the Joseph Lanctot who was the party to the marriage ceremony in the church in Quebec. His marriage and cohabitation with Vienna Michaud were conceded. The state, to maintain the issue on its part, introduced in evidence, over the objection of the plaintiff in error, certain letters which, it was alleged, the plaintiff in error had written back to his wife, Octavia, from various places in this state and in Michigan. They were ordinary letters, such as might be expected from persons of his station and circumstances, to the wife he had left behind him, expressive of marital tenderness and affection. They were addressed “Dear Wife,” and subscribed “Your devoted husband, Joseph Lanctot.” But two of them were not subscribed with his name. One said, instead, “You will address Mr. John C. Harvey, Duluth, Minnesota;” the other, “This is my address, Mr. John C. Harvey,” adding a post office.Howard Benton and Titus & McIntosh, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Mylrea, Atty. Gen., for the State.

NEWMAN, J. (after stating the facts).

Two questions are presented: (1) Was the evidence of the former marriage sufficient to sustain the conviction? And (2) was the reception of the letters in evidence prejudicial error?

The law relating to proof of foreign marriages seems to be that where a formal ceremony of marriage, solemnized in a church by a person assuming the office of a priest or minister, is shown, it will be presumed, in favor of the marriage, that it is in accordance with the law of the country, and valid. So, when such a marriage is shown, especially if followed by cohabitation, the burden is on him who denies the validity of the marriage to show that the law required some further act or fact to make it valid. 1 Bish. Mar. & Div. (New; 1891) §§ 1115-1122; ...