Canale v. People
| Decision Date | 21 December 1898 |
| Citation | 177 Ill. 219,52 N.E. 310 |
| Parties | CANALE v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to criminal court, Cook county; William G. Ewing, Judge.
Carmelo Canale was convicted of bigamy, and brings error. Reversed.David Jetzinger, for plaintiff in error.
Edward C. Akin, Atty. Gen. (Charles S. Deneen, State's Atty., and Willard M. McEwen, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for the People.
Carmelo Canale, the plaintiff in error, was convicted in the criminal court of Cook county on an indictment charging him with bigamy. Three witnesses testified that in 1891, in Altavilla, Italy, they were present at the marriage of plaintiff in error and Rosalie LoCascio; that the marriage took place in a church, and was solemnized by a minister of religion according to the rites of the church, and in the presence of a large number of friends and acquaintances. The sister of Rosalie testified that after the ceremony plaintiff in error and Rosalie went to the home of his parents, and they there lived together for three months, and that he then abandoned his wife, and that she never saw him again until she came to Chicago, where she found him living with another woman as his wife. She further testified that plaintiff in error was 15 and her sister 13 years old when they were married, and that no child had been born of the marriage. It was also shown by the people that in September, 1897, plaintiff in error was married to Giuseppa Rimagro by a justice of the peace in Chicago. Plaintiff in error testified in his own behalf, and denied ever participating in any marriage ceremony with the said Rosalie at any place or before any person authorized by law to perform a marriage ceremony, and denied that he had ever lived or cohabited with her as his wife. Count A. L. Rozwadowski, the Italian consul at Chicago, testified that he was a graduate of the university at Naples, and was a member of the bar of the city of Turin, Italy, and had practiced before the courts in said city two years; that he was president of the Italian consular court at Alexandria, Egypt, for four years; that he was familiar with the Civil Code of Italy, and that the following citations given in evidence are correct translations from the Code, a copy of which he then had before him: [177 Ill. 221]Page 17, § 55: ‘No male person can enter into marriage until eighteen years of age nor any female person until fifteen.’ Page 18, § 63: ‘No son under twenty-five nor daughter under twenty-one can marry without consent of father and mother.’ Page 18, § 71: ‘Notice of proposed marriage must be posted by the official of public acts twice in succession on door of town hall in town where either party resides.’ Page 18, § 74: ‘No publication of marriage can be posted unless consent of father and mother is had.’ Page 20, § 84: ‘Where difference of opinion between father and mother, father's opinion shall prevail.’ Page 25, § 93: ‘The marriage must be celebrated in the town hall in public manner, before the official of the civil acts of the town in which one of the contracting parties have their domicile or residence.’ He testified further that these sections had been in force without amendment since 1865, and were still in force; that by the laws of Italy a marriage ceremony, to be valid, must be celebrated in accordance with the above provisions, and a compliance therewith is absolutely essential to constitute marriage; that there is no other legal mode in which a marriage can be celebrated, and an intended marriage contracted otherwise than as prescribed cannot be validated or recognized as lawful by subsequent ratification or declarations or the cohabitation of parties, and any marriage ceremony intended or pretended, and not celebrated in strict compliance with the foregoing provisions, is deemed in law wholly null and void, and not merely voidable; that where an intended marriage is contracted or celebrated otherwise than in accordance with the foregoing provisions, no act or acts of parties participating can make the same valid and of force in Italy. The father of Giuseppa Rimagro testified that he knew the plaintiff in error and said Rosalie in Italy; that he knew no such marriage ceremony as described by the witnesses ever took place; and that children born as the issue of people who have participated in such ceremony were not legitimate and had no right to inherit. What, if any, knowledge this witness had of the laws of Italy does not appear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sturm v. Sturm
...citizens entitled to the benefit of the laws of their own country. Phillips v. Gregg, 10 Watts (Pa.) 158, 36 Am. Dec. 158; Canale v. People, 177 Ill. 219, 52 N. E. 310; Travers v. Reinhardt, 205 U. S. 423, 27 S. Ct. 563, 51 L. Ed. 865. But so far as the validity of a marriage depends on the......
- Reifschneider v. Reifschneider
-
People v. Shaw
...St. Rep. 517), and as the law of New York must control as to the validity of the marriage (McDeed v. McDeed, 67 Ill. 545;Canale v. People, 177 Ill. 219, 52 N. E. 310;Reifschneider v. Reifschneider, 241 Ill. 92, 89 N. E. 255), it must be held to be void in this state. His marriage with Helen......
-
Rauton v. Pullman Co.
...of an expert as to the accepted or proper construction of them is admissible upon any matter open to reasonable doubt." In Canale v. People, 177 Ill. 219, 52 N.E. 310, it held that where the Italian Code was produced in evidence, and it was claimed that the Code did not require certain form......