Cathron v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtCARTER, J.
Citation24 So. 496,40 Fla. 468
Decision Date18 October 1898
PartiesCATHRON v. STATE.

24 So. 496

40 Fla. 468

CATHRON
v.
STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

October 18, 1898


Error to criminal court of record, Volusia county; Isaac A. Stewart, Judge.

Albert Cathron was convicted of bigamy, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Under the first clause of section 2603, Rev. St., prescribing a penalty against one who, having a former husband or wife living, marries another person in this state, the second marriage constitutes the gist of the offense, and must be laid in the indictment with particulars of time and place; but the first marriage, being matter of inducement, may be averred without particulars of time and place.

2. Under the second clause of section 2603, Rev. St., prescribing a penalty against one who, having a former husband or wife living, continues to cohabit with a second husband or wife in this state, the continued conabitation constitutes the gist of the offense, and must be laid in the indictment with particulars of time and place; but the two marriages, being matters of inducement, need not be averred with particulars of time and place, and are sufficiently charged if alleged to have been contracted with certain named persons, prior to the time of the alleged continued cohabitation.

COUNSEL [24 So. 497]

[40 Fla. 469] A. M. Michelson and B. Rabino, for plaintiff in error.

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

CARTER, J.

At a term of the criminal court of record of Volusia county, held in April, 1898, the plaintiff in error was convicted upon an information exhibited against him on the 13th day of August, 1895, by the prosecuting officer of that court, charging 'that Albert Cathron, on the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four, in the county and state aforesaid, with force and arms, did unlawfully continue to cohabit with, and have for his wife, one Vinzula Smith, from the 1st day of January, 1894, to the 13th day of August, 1895, the said Albert Cathron having married the said Vinzula Smith, and, at the time of the said marriage of the said Albert Cathron to the said Vinzula Smith, the said Albert Cathron then and there had, and still has, a former wife living, namely, Julia Cathron, against the form of the statute,' etc., and, from the sentence imposed, sued out this writ of error.

Before arraignment, the defendant moved to quash the information, stating as grounds therefor that the information...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Ferrell v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 24, 1903
    ...589, 85 N.W. 836, 57 L. R. A. 155. It is also insisted that the time and place of the first marriage is not alleged. In Cathron v. State, 40 Fla. 468, 24 So. 496, this question was fully considered, and ruled adversely to defendant's contention. Again, it is argued that the indictment does ......
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 15, 1918
    ...statute. This we think is sufficient. Section 3961, General Statutes 1906, Florida Compiled Laws 1914. In the case of Cathron v. State, 40 Fla. 468, 24 So. 496, this court held that-- 'While two marriages must be alleged and proved, the first marriage is mere matter of inducement requiring ......
  • Teston v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 4, 1913
    ...unlawful continuous cohabitation. As to the requirements for an information or indictment founded on this statute, see Cathron v. State, 40 Fla. 468, 24 So. 496, and Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 So. 220. Examining the information in the light of these two cases, it is obvious that it fa......
3 cases
  • Ferrell v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 24, 1903
    ...589, 85 N.W. 836, 57 L. R. A. 155. It is also insisted that the time and place of the first marriage is not alleged. In Cathron v. State, 40 Fla. 468, 24 So. 496, this question was fully considered, and ruled adversely to defendant's contention. Again, it is argued that the indictment does ......
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 15, 1918
    ...statute. This we think is sufficient. Section 3961, General Statutes 1906, Florida Compiled Laws 1914. In the case of Cathron v. State, 40 Fla. 468, 24 So. 496, this court held that-- 'While two marriages must be alleged and proved, the first marriage is mere matter of inducement requiring ......
  • Teston v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 4, 1913
    ...unlawful continuous cohabitation. As to the requirements for an information or indictment founded on this statute, see Cathron v. State, 40 Fla. 468, 24 So. 496, and Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 So. 220. Examining the information in the light of these two cases, it is obvious that it fa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT