Johnson v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 March 1915 |
| Citation | 221 F. 250 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
F. E Thompson, of Burlington, Iowa, and F. M. Ballinger, of Keokuk, Iowa, for plaintiff in error.
Claude R. Porter, of Centerville, Iowa, for defendant in error.
Before SANBORN, ADAMS, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Charles W. Johnson, plaintiff in error, was indicted in the court below for violating the provisions of the act of June 25 1910 (36 Stat. 825), commonly known as the White Slave Act. He was charged in the indictment with having aided and assisted in obtaining transportation for a woman named Maude Johnson to be transported from Burlington, Iowa, to Monmouth Ill., in interstate commerce, for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery, in violation of the provisions of section 2 of the act above mentioned.
At the trial Maude Johnson was called as a witness on behalf of the government, and after it was made to appear that she was the wife of the defendant, and that the case disclosed no personal violence upon either the wife or the husband counsel for defendant objected to her testifying on the ground that she was not a competent witness. This objection was overruled by the court, due exceptions allowed, and she testified to the facts substantially as charged in the indictment. This was all the evidence in the case. Again, after her testimony had been taken and no personal violence shown, defendant's counsel moved the court to instruct the jury not to consider the testimony of the wife. This motion was denied, and defendant's counsel duly excepted. A verdict of guilty followed, and defendant was sentenced to serve a term of five years in the Minnesota state penitentiary and to pay the costs of the case.
The only question presented for our consideration is: Could the wife testify against the husband upon a trial of the charge preferred in the indictment? At common law the rule was that neither husband nor wife could testify against each other. Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209, 10 L.Ed. 129; Bassett v. United States, 137 U.S. 496, 11 Sup.Ct 165, 34 L.Ed. 762; Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 165 U.S. 342, 17 Sup.Ct. 401, 41 L.Ed. 739. And this rule has not been changed by any statute of the United States, except as modified and limited by section 858 of the Revised Statutes of 1878, and this section does not affect the common-law incompetency of a husband or wife from testifying against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyatt v. United States, 119
...Levine v. United States, 5 Cir., 163 F.2d 992; Shores v. United States, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 838, 11 A.L.R.2d 635, overruling Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 221 F. 250; Pappas v. United States, 9 Cir., 241 F. 665; Hayes v. United States, 10 Cir., 168 F.2d 3. The United States does not questi......
-
United States v. Williams
...the rules already existing in 1789,1 and which the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered binding in Johnson v. United States, 1916, 221 F. 250. In that case the court did hold that a wife whose husband transports her across interstate lines for immoral purposes could no......
-
United States v. Mitchell
...D.C.E.D.Pa., 189 F. 271; United States v. Bozeman, D.C.W.D.Wash., 236 F. 432.3 In the only case which has ruled otherwise, Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 221 F. 250, the court, as Wigmore, id., points out, failed to consider the exception at all. In Yoder v. United States, 10 Cir., 80 F.......
-
Wyatt v. United States
...Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 616, 619. 7 United States v. Gwynne, D.C.E.D.Pa. 1914, 209 F. 993, 995; Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 1915, 221 F. 250, 251. ...