Bayliss v. People
| Decision Date | 15 June 1881 |
| Citation | 46 Mich. 221,9 N.W. 257 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | BAYLISS v. PEOPLE. |
A complaint for adultery between a married woman and an unmarried man may be made by the woman's husband. Comp.Laws, � 7693. Offences committed on or within 100 rods of the boundary between two counties may be prosecuted and punished in either county. An examination of a prisoner by the trial judge to ascertain whether his plea of guilty is voluntary is not necessarily defective because made in open court and in the presence of the prosecuting attorney, though there may be cases where it should be private.
An information was filed against the respondent in the circuit court for the county of Shiawassee, charging him with having committed adultery with one Theresa Phoenix at the "Clinton House, an hotel in the village of Ovid in Clinton county, within 100 rods of the dividing line between said county of Clinton and said county of Shiawassee." To this information the respondent pleaded guilty and was duly sentenced. The case is now brought here on writ of error and the errors assigned are--First, that the complaint was not made by the wife of the respondent; secondly, that the information charged him with the commission of a crime in the county of Clinton; and, third, that an investigation, after plea and before sentence, was not made by the circuit judge as required by the statute. Act 99 of the Sess.Laws of 1875.
The complaint was made by the husband of Theresa Phoenix, thus following the precedent adopted in Parsons v. The People, 21 Mich. 509, where the question was incidentally considered and the judgment affirmed. Our statute, section 7693, Comp.Laws, in providing that "no prosecution for adultery shall be commenced but on the complaint of the husband or wife," must be construed in connection with the first section of the same chapter, which declares that when the crime is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, the man shall be deemed guilty of adultery and liable to the same punishment. If in such a case the complaint could not be made by the husband of the woman such unmarried man could not be prosecuted or punished, which certainly was not the intention. We are of opinion that the complaint was properly made under our statute.
As to the second error assigned. The statute in express terms authorizes the prosecution and punishment in either county of offences committed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial