Caldwell v. State
| Decision Date | 29 May 1906 |
| Citation | 41 So. 473,146 Ala. 141 |
| Parties | CALDWELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Manning H. Caldwell was convicted of bigamy, and he appeals. Affirmed.
E. F Tate and Pearson & Richardson, for appellant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
It was not necessary to aver in the indictment that the bigamous cohabitation occurred in this state, or within the county of Elmore. Said averment is dispensed with by section 4902 of the Criminal Code of 1896. The proof of venue was abundant.
The witness Wingo, a brother of the first and legal wife, gave evidence which, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, proved defendant's marriage to his sister in South Carolina in 1899, his living with her as husband, and that she was still living at the time of the trial. For the purpose of supplementing this evidence, it was competent to prove acts declaratory or admissions of the defendant in recognition of the alleged first wife as his legal spouse. The witness Wingo produced and identified certain letters written by defendant to the sister of the witness, addressed to Mrs. Minnie Caldwell, and in which the defendant called her his wife and subscribed himself as her loving husband. The only tendency of the letters was to show the relation of husband and wife between the parties, and thus lay the predicate for the charge that the defendant's second marriage was illegal. There was no fact of a private or confidential nature disclosed by the letters; and hence we do not think, under the circumstances of this case, that the admission in evidence of the letters, coupled with the testimony of the witness Wingo, who saw them when delivered by the post violated the rule against allowing proof of confidential and private communications between husband and wife, not intended to be made public. We are unable to reach the conclusion that any public policy would be infringed or the peace of the family disturbed by showing that the husband had written his wife letters, when absent from home, in which he spoke of himself as her loving husband. No error was committed in allowing proof of the letters. They were competent for the purpose and upon the considerations above stated.
There was no material variance between the names "Lydia" and "Liddie." Greater differences between names than this have been held immaterial, both by this and other courts. The case is within the rule of idem sonans. The accent or emphasis in each name is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. State
...of (or directed at) a third party lacks that requisite confidentiality between spouses." 353 So.2d at 527, citing Caldwell v. State, 146 Ala. 141, 41 So. 473 (1906). In Arnold, the wife overheard her husband's telephone conversation with a third party. The Supreme Court held that this commu......
-
Graham v. State
...loses its confidential character (and thus its privilege status) if it is made in the presence of third parties. Caldwell v. State, 146 Ala. 141, 41 So. 473 (1906).’"See also Howton v. State, 391 So. 2d 147 (Ala. Cr. App. 1980), which held that testimony of an investigator concerning conten......
-
Reese v. State
... ... In this case, the informant, in addition to giving past information that led to an arrest, had given past information that was "true and correct." Gonzalez v. State, 577 S.W.2d 226 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 853, 100 S.Ct. 109, 62 L.Ed.2d 71 (1979); State v. Caldwell, 25 N.C.App. 269, 212 S.E.2d 669 (1975). The informant had also given "correct" detailed information concerning criminal investigations to the affiant personally and to other officers of the Birmingham Police Department. United States v. Guinn, 454 F.2d 29 (5th Cir.1972); State v. Williams, 49 ... ...
-
Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 722
...the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold, nor the particular time or place at which it was sold. Authorities supra; Caldwell v. State , 41 So. 473; Lee v. State , 41 So. We think the Coleman case and the Walker case, next cited, clearly show that the rule in the Grattan case, supr......