Mickle v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 1896 |
| Citation | 21 So. 66 |
| Parties | MICKLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Blount county; John W. Inzer, Special Judge.
M. J Mickle was convicted of living in adultery with one Pinkney E. Hunter, and he appeals. Reversed.
Mrs. E J. Mickle was a witness for the state, and it was claimed she was the wife of the defendant, and was therefore not competent to testify in a case against her husband. It was shown that before the trial a decree was entered in a suit by M. J. Mickle against the said Eliza J. Mickle, as follows After the introduction of this evidence, and the evidence recited in the opinion, the court held that the said Elizabeth J. Mickle was a competent witness to testify in behalf of the state against the defendant, and overruled the defendant's objection to her testimony, and defendant excepted.
Robinett & Allgood, for appellant.
William C. Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
We do not doubt that the decree of divorce rendered by the court of chancery operated a final dissolution of the marriage existing between the defendant and his former wife, rendering them competent witnesses for or against each other, as to facts and transactions of subsequent occurrence. The suspension or proposed suspension of the decree, added by way of postscript, after the solemn, deliberate adjudication that the bonds of matrimony be dissolved, and that the offending party be at liberty to marry again, was not within the jurisdiction of the chancellor, and is a mere nullity. Justice is not the subject of bargain and sale, and cannot be granted or decreed because the parties are or are not of ability to pay costs. Chancellors have a large discretion in the imposition of costs, and may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Evans
... ... whether there has been an erroneous construction of statute ... or common law by the state court. Due process requires, ... however, that the court which assumes to determine the rights ... of parties shall have jurisdiction, and that ... 573; 9 R.C.L. § 243, p. 439; Id ... § 325, p. 503; Id ... § 326, p. 504. This application ... of the rule is not in conflict with Mickle v. State, ... 21 So. 66, where it was declared that a suspension of the ... decree until the costs were paid is a nullity, and that such ... a ... ...
-
Rogers v. McLeskey
... ... appellant was not the widow of decedent Rogers? The decisions ... are that marriage may be contracted in this state by parties ... competent to so contract without ceremony or solemnization, ... by mutual and actual agreement and consent by the parties ... 131, 25 Am. Rep. 665; Cameron v. State, 14 Ala. 546, ... 48 Am. Dec. 111; Fortner v. State, 12 Ala. App. 179, ... 181, 67 So. 720; Mickle v. State (Ala. Sup.) 21 So ... 66; and by the collective facts, Bynon v. State, 117 ... Ala. 82, 23 So. 640, 67 Am. St. Rep. 163 ... ...
-
Woodward Iron Co. v. Dean
...69 So. 885, L.R.A.1916B, 1243; Tartt v. Negus, 127 Ala. 301, 28 So. 713; Moore v. Heineke, 119 Ala. 627, 636, 637, 24 So. 374; Mickle v. State (Ala.Sup.) 21 So. 66; v. State, 151 Ala. 108, 111, 44 So. 57; Langtry v. State, 30 Ala. 536; L.R.A.1915E, 53, note. Thus we are brought to a decisio......
-
Fuquay v. State
...Langtry v. State, 30 Ala. 537; Williams v. State, 54 Ala. 133, 25 Am.Rep. 665; Buchaanan v. State, 55 Ala. 154.' " See, also, Mickle v. State (Ala.Sup.) 21 So. 66; Parker v. State, 77 Ala. 47, 54 Am.Rep. Any other rule would prevent the drawing of reasonable conclusions from the facts in ev......