Bowman v. Patrick
| Decision Date | 28 September 1887 |
| Citation | 32 F. 368 |
| Parties | BOWMAN v. PATRICK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Erasmus McGinness, for complainant.
Edward Cunningham, Jr., and Edward C. Eliot, for respondents.
This case was argued on Monday on the motion to strike out certain exhibits filed in the master's report of the testimony in the case. Those exhibits were letters written by one of the defendants to his wife, and the ground of the motion to suppress them is that they are such communications as are protected by the principle which the law throws around communications between husband and wife. I confess I was very much astonished to find that there are some authorities which hold that while the wife cannot be permitted to tell, and not only that, but will be forbidden to tell, what her husband says to her in any matter of marital or private relations, or while the private relation exists she will be forbidden to tell anything,-- will not be permitted to tell anything on the stand to the injury of her husband,-- I say, I am surprised to find, while that general principle prevails that there are some authorities holding that where this evidence can be got at, either by obtaining possession of a letter, or some method of overhearing communications by some third party between the husband and wife, that this evidence can be used. We have examined these authorities, and we are satisfied that, as exceptions, they do not include the present case. In the present case the report of the testimony shows, concerning the party objecting to the use of these letters written to his wife, that there was something like a separation between him and his wife, and proceedings for a divorce were instituted. Pending these proceedings the wife died, and the man who professed to be the executor or administrator of the wife's estate got hold of these letters, and without any requirement of his office as administrator without any necessity for his using these letters in any way he-- we will not say maliciously, but in a spirit of hostility to the husband-- delivered the letters to the other side. Whatever exceptions there may be to the rule protecting communications between husband and wife which may exist, and in regard to which I do not propose to say anything further, I am quite clear that the wife has no right to publish these communications; that she would not be permitted to produce the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fisher
...communications from one spouse to the other. As stated by Justice Miller of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bowman v. Patrick, 32 F. 368 (C.C.Mo.1887): "I am quite clear that the wife has no right to publish these communications; that she would not be permitted to produce the lett......
-
Rice v. Waddill
...policy. Mahner v. Linck, 70 Mo.App. 387; Hall v. Hall, 77 Mo.App. 606; State v. Ulrich, 110 Mo. 364; Kane v. Kane, 79 Mo.App. 339; Bowman v. Patrick, 32 F. 368. (2) widow takes "a share in the personal estate belonging to the husband at the time of his death. Sec. 293, R. S. 1899. There is ......
-
Wolfle v. United States
...by the husband to his wife, found by the latter's administrator among her papers, although proved by a third party witness. Bowman v. Patrick (C.C.) 32 F. 368; cf. Lloyd v. Pennie (D.C.) 50 F. 4. A like decision was reached by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in New York ......
-
United States v. Neal
...v. Hunter, 169 Pa.Super. 498, 83 A.2d 401, 404 (1951). 8 Liggett v. Glenn, 51 F. 381, 396-97 (8th Cir. 1892); Bowman v. Patrick, 32 F. 368 (C.C.E.D. Mo.1887) (per Justice Miller). The Supreme Court has noted in Wolfle that, under state law at least, a spouse's involvement in a disclosure to......