Holder v. State
| Decision Date | 16 February 1895 |
| Citation | 29 S.W. 793 |
| Parties | HOLDER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Bosque county court; W. B. Thompson, Judge.
S. W. Holder was convicted of adultery, and appeals. Affirmed.
P. B. Ward and Lockett & Kimball, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
This is a conviction for adultery, the fine imposed being $1,000. Under license issued for that purpose in 1888, the appellant was, by W. H. Roberts, a preacher, married to Miss Rosa Cleveland, with whom he lived as husband for about two years, when they separated. Upon the trial he proved that said Roberts was not an ordained minister of the gospel at the time he performed said marriage ceremony. This fact being established, he contends this marriage was a nullity, and therefore his second marriage was legal; hence he was not guilty of adultery in living with the woman to whom he was married in 1892. The fact that Roberts was not an ordained minister does not render the first marriage a nullity. Simon v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 186, 20 S. W. 399, 716; Foster v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 409, 20 S. W. 823. Justice Strong, for the supreme court of the United States, quoting Greenleaf on Evidence, says: "Though in most, if not all, the United States, there are statutes regulating the celebration of marriage rites, and inflicting penalties on all who disobey the regulations, yet it is generally considered that, in the absence of any positive statute declaring that all marriages not celebrated in the prescribed manner shall be void, or that none but certain magistrates or ministers shall solemnize a marriage, any marriage, regularly made according to the common law, without observing the statute regulations, would still be a valid marriage." Meister v. Moore, 96 U. S. 76, 80. Such statutes are merely directory. Marriage is a civil contract, and is a thing of common right, so recognized by all civilized countries in all ages, and is encouraged by public policy. A rule of construction as contended for by appellant would bastardize children whose parents believed they were legally married, and who were not conscious of violating any law, human or divine, and who believed they had entered into the marital relation without coming in conflict with the provisions of statutory enactments. Such a rule, we think, fraught with consequences fearful to the interest of society, would tend to flood the courts with litigation, unsettle property rights, and disturb settled rights of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levick v. Macdougall
...2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 1977, at *9–11 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2004) ). See also Haggin, 53 N.W. at 211 ; Holder v. State, 35 Tex.Crim. 19, 29 S.W. 793, 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 1895).See generally Payne v. Commonwealth, 201 Va. 209, 211, 110 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1959) (refusing to extend the void-ab-......
-
Lee v. State
...effect of all the authorities to which we have had access. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Cody (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 135; Holder v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 29 S. W. 793. It will be seen from an inspection of the authorities that the bare statement of a man to a woman that they take each other f......
-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Cody
...Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 534; Simmons v. Simmons (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S. W. 639; Simon v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 20 S. W. 399; Holder v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 793. 2. No error is shown by reason of the court's failure to submit the case to the jury upon special issues requested by 3. Th......
-
Gabaldon v. Gabaldon (In re Gabaldon's Estate)
...any record made, the marriage could still be proved by witnesses other than the so-called officer or by himself. “In the case of Holder v. State 29 S. W. 793, it was set up by Holder and proved by him, that a marriage ceremony was performed between him and one Rosa Cleveland by a person nam......