Kirk v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1880 |
| Citation | 65 Ga. 159 |
| Parties | Kirk. v. The State of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal law. Bigamy. Persons of color. Husband and wife. Laws. Before Judge Crisp. Sumpter Superior Court. October Term, 1879.
Kirk was indicted for bigamy and convicted. It appeared from the evidence that in December, 1865, he was married to Tiney Burke, and lived with her until about 1879. He then married another woman. After conviction, defendant moved for a new trial on the following among other grounds:
(1). Because colored people could not contract marriage in Georgia until after the act of 1866.
(2). Because the indictment did not charge that defendant's first wife was colored, that being essential to the validity of the marriage.
The motion was overruled and the defendant excepted.
Hinton & Mathews; Simmons & Simmons, for plaintiff in error.
C. B. Hudson, solicitor-general, for the state.
The defendant was indicted for bigamy and found guilty, he made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted.
1. There is no error of law discoverable from the record, and the case is fully made out. The defendant *married one woman in 1865, and lived with her from that time till 1879, and then married another woman, the first wife still living. Even if the first marriage about Christ mas. 1865, was illegal, which is not apparent, as defendant was then free and capable of contracting, he was living with that wife at the date of the act of 1866, which operated to make them married people, and his subsequent marriage, while the first wife was alive, made bigamy.
2. It makes no difference that the parties were colored; at least their color need not appear in the indictment, and the conviction is right in every view we are able to take of the record. 12 Ga., 142; Mitchell v. The State, last term.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Melton
...N. C. 03G; State v. Adams, 65 N. C. 537; Long v. Barnes, 87 N. C. 329; Jones v. Hoggard, 108 N. C. 178, 12 S. E. 906, 907; Kirk v. State, 65 Ga. 159. By these authorities, if the defendant and Harriet, having married in South Carolina while slaves, had cohabited in North Carolina after 1896......
-
State v. Melton
...... prescribed acknowledgment" made before the clerk, and. therefore,. [26 S.E. 935] . even if such acknowledgment were not made at all. State. v. Whitford, 86 N.C. 636; State v. Adams, 65. N.C. 537; Long v. Barnes, 87 N.C. 329; Jones v. Hoggard, 108 N.C. 178, 12 S.E. 906, 907; Kirk v. State, 65 Ga. 159. By these authorities, if the. defendant and Harriet, having married in South Carolina while. slaves, had cohabited in North Carolina after 1866, as there. was evidence tending to show they did in South Carolina, they. could not have been convicted of fornication and ......