Commonwealth v. Kendall
| Decision Date | 18 October 1894 |
| Citation | 162 Mass. 221,38 N.E. 504 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. KENDALL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
F.A. Gaskill, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
F.P Goulding, W.E. Sibley, and F.L. Dean, for defendant.
The defendant finds no fault with the construction put by the court upon the statute relating to foreign divorces (Pub.St c. 146, § 41), nor with the instructions as to what was necessary to constitute a change of domicile. There is no occasion, therefore, for us to examine into or express an opinion upon the correctness or incorrectness of the charge of the presiding justice in relation to these matters, though we have some doubts as to their correctness. The only objection which the defendant now makes is to the refusal of the court to rule as requested, in effect, by him, that the jury were not justified upon the evidence in finding him guilty, the evidence failing to show beyond a reasonable doubt, as he contends, that he was an inhabitant of this state when the divorce was granted. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt. "It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge." Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 320. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such evidence as establishes "the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it." Id. Applying these definitions to the evidence, we think that the verdict was well warranted. The defendant does not deny that the jury were justified in finding that he went to Dakota for the purpose of getting a divorce. That question need not be considered, therefore except as it bears upon the question of his inhabitancy. For many years before he went to Sioux Falls the defendant's home had been in Worcester. He had carried on business there, though he had sold it out in 1890, and presumably had formed such connections as one naturally would who had lived there for some time, and had been in business there. He left November 1 or 2, 1891, and reached Sioux Falls on the 5th or 6th. His departure was not accompanied, so far as appears, by any declaration that he intended to abandon Worcester as his home, though he testified that when he went away he did not intend to return. There was evidence that he had said some time previously that if he could not get a divorce here, he would go west and get one, and he admitted on cross-examination that when he left Worcester...
To continue reading
Request your trial