Com. v. Whipple
| Decision Date | 20 May 1902 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. WHIPPLE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John D. McLaughlin, 2d, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Daggett & Young and John W. Hathaway, for defendants.
This is a complaint against the two defendants for keeping a house of ill fame. At the trial the male defendant testified on direct examination that he was the husband of the other defendant. Thereupon, on cross-examination, he was asked the questions that were objected to, namely, if his first marriage to the female defendant was his second marriage, to which he answered, 'Yes,' if at the time of his second marriage his first wife was living, to which he answered, 'Yes, he supposed so;' if at that time the first wife had obtained a divorce, to which he answered, 'No;' if he knew this at that time, to which he answered, 'Yes;' and if he had seen his first wife since his second marriage, and living with his second wife, to which he answered, 'Yes; the last time, about five years prior to this trial.' It is admitted that a defendant, by testifying in his own behalf, submits himself to cross-examination on all matters relevant to the issue. We think that the question whether the two defendants were married or not was relevant to the issue, and that therefore this evidence was competent. It is possible that it was also competent, as the commonwealth contends, for the purpose of showing what the actual relation between the two defendants was, with a view to repelling any presumption of coercion that might arise if the female defendant was the wife of the other defendant, though it is to be observed that a married woman can be indicted or complained of alone for keeping a house of ill fame, and that the ordinary presumption of coercion from the presence of the husband does not arise in such a case. Com. v. Lewis, 1 Metc. 151.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bingham v. United States
...Life Ins. Co., 147 U.S. 177, 181, 182, 183, 13 S.Ct. 275, 37 L.Ed. 128, compare dissent 147 U.S. 188, 13 S.Ct. 279; Commonwealth v. Whipple, 181 Mass. 343, 63 N.E. 919; Pingrey v. National Life Insurance Co., 144 Mass. 374, 382, 11 N.E. After having deducted the specific exemption of $40,00......
-
Blacksher v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
...Ins. Co., 147 U. S. 177, 181, 182, 183, 13 S. Ct. 275, 37 L. Ed. 128, compare dissent 147 U. S. 188, 13 S. Ct. 279; Commonwealth v. Whipple, 181 Mass. 343, 63 N. E. 919; Pingrey v. National Life Insurance Co., 144 Mass. 374, 382, 11 N. E. Also, in Ballard v. Helburn, 9 Fed. Supp. 812; affd.......
- Savage v. Goldsmith
- Haskell v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.