Carney v. State

• Decision Date: 29 May 1888
• Citation: 84 Ala. 7,4 So. 285
• Parties: CARNEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

4 So. 285

84 Ala. 7

CARNEY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 29, 1888

Appeal from city court of Mobile; O. J. SEMMES, Judge.

This was a prosecution of the appellant for the abandonment of his wife and child. The witnesses for the state testified that William Carney, an able-bodied man and able to support his wife, was married to Kate Nicholas in February, 1886, and lived with her eight days, and then abandoned her; that said Kate Nicholas was the mother of a child before she married the defendant, and that after the marriage the defendant admitted that he was the father of the child; and that the child and mother had been supported and maintained, both before and after the marriage of the mother, by her brother-in-law. The defendant testified that, after he had been married eight days, he had to leave home to sit up with his brother's corpse; that he was absent from home all one night, and until about 12 o'clock the night following; that his clothes got wet, and he went home to get some dry clothes; that his wife came to the front door in her night clothes, and let him in; that when he got in he found his bedroom door ajar, and went in there; that, when he went in his said bedroom, he saw some man's shoes sitting by the fire-place, and asked whose they were, and his wife replied that they were her brother's shoes, and about that time he heard some one move in the bed, and, as he looked around, a man turned his face towards the wall, and pulled the cover of the bed over his head; that the cover on the outside of the bed was thrown back, and the bed looked as if two persons had been occupying it; that he took his clothes and left, and never went back any more. The defendant also denied that he was the father of his wife's child. A brother of defendant's wife testified, in rebuttal, that he slept in his sister's bed that night until 2 or 3 o'clock, and that he lived in the same house with his sister. The defendant also produced evidence, by cross-examination of the state's witnesses, that his wife was a woman of good health, and had been supported, both before and after her marriage, comfortably and well by her brother-in-law, and that she was still being so supported. The state asked the witness Judge, who so supported the defendant's wife, whether he also supported his mother. The defendant objected to this question, but the court overruled the objection; whereupon the defendant excepted. The witness answered that he did. The defendant then offered to testify that he went, in consequence of a message that he had received, to an assignation-house in search of his wife and was refused admittance; but, while watching from the outside, heard female voices within, and saw a woman, whom he believed to be his wife, step out the back way, and get over the fence, and that the keeper of the assignation-house subsequently told the defendant that such woman was his wife and that she frequently visited such house of prostitution. This was before the defendant saw a man in the bed with his wife. But the court refused to allow the defendant to so testify, to which refusal he excepted. There was a variance between the testimony of the witness Judge and that of his wife, both of whom were state witnesses, as to the health of the defendant's wife; the witness Judge testified that it was not good, while his wife testified to the contrary. The defendant asked said Judge whether or not his wife had as good an opportunity of judging of the health of defendant's wife's health as he himself (Judge) had. The court sustained an objection to this question, and the defendant objected. The court refused to give two charges requested by the defendant, which, in substance, are set out in the opinion. ...