Monteith v. State
| Decision Date | 01 April 1902 |
| Citation | 89 N.W. 828,114 Wis. 165 |
| Parties | MONTEITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Douglas county; C. Smith, Judge.
Robert Monteith was convicted of adultery, and appeals. Affirmed.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of adultery, and brings his writ of error to reverse the judgment. The crime was alleged to have been committed with one Sophia Olson, a married woman, on the 27th day of February, 1901, at the city of Superior. One Christ Olson, the husband of Sophia Olson, was the principal witness on the part of the state. His testimony tends to show that his wife was addicted to drinking; that he and his wife had had considerable domestic difficulty arising from her drinking, and from her associating with the defendant; that they at one time lived in the Chase Block in Superior, and rented one of their rooms to Monteith; that witness and his wife were living apart when the crime is said to have been committed, but that they had met, and had some difficulty on that day; that the defendant was still occupying a room in the second story of the Chase Block at that time, and that on the evening in question the witness saw his wife go into the front entrance of the Chase Block; that he immediately went to the rear entrance, and reached the hall of the second story in time to see his wife enter defendant's room; that he stayed in the hall and watched for several hours, and saw defendant go down and get a can of beer, and take it into the room; that witness went away and returned early in the morning, and saw his wife and defendant come out of the room together, and that he followed them into the street, where he had a fight with the defendant. The testimony was undisputed that Sophia Olson occupied a room in the Chase Block that night, and that defendant engaged the room for her, and showed her to it. There is some testimony tending to show that it was a room adjoining defendant's room. A roommate of the defendant testifies that the defendant was in his own room in the evening, and stayed there all night; but his testimony was much shaken on cross-examination, and he admitted that he did not know when defendant went out of the room in the morning. There was also testimony by one witness to the effect that it was impossible to see the door of defendant's room from the point where Olson claimed he stood and watched in the hall on account of a jog in the wall of the hall; but it is clear that, even if the door itself was not actually in sight, people who came upstairs and went in the direction of the defendant's room could be seen until they reached a point within a very short distance of the door. Certain letters which the witness Olson testified that he procured from his wife were introduced in evidence, against objection and exception. Neither the defendant nor Mrs. Olson were sworn as witnesses. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Richardson
...of a reasonable man to the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (State v. Shelton, 46 Idaho 423, 267 P. 950; Monteith v. State, 114 Wis. 165, 89 N.W. 828; State v. Sims, 35 Idaho 505, 206 P. In prosecutions for adultery positive evidence of direct fact of intercourse is not requi......
-
State v. Shelton
...such as would lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable man to the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (Monteith v. State, 114 Wis. 165, 89 N.W. 828.) In the case at bar there were no equivocal circumstances. The proof tending to connect the defendant with the commission of th......
-
Molloy v. Molloy
...relating to adultery mainly in terms of what has been labeled 'adulterous disposition and opportunity.' Monteith v. State (1902), 114 Wis. 165, 168, 89 N.W. 828; Ermis v. Ermis (1949), 255 Wis. 339, 38 N.W.2d 485; Hartman v. Hartman (1948), 253 Wis. 389, 34 N.W.2d 137; see also 2 Greenl. Ev......
-
State v. Sims
...201 P. 494.) The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment based thereon. (2 C. J., sec. 43, p. 22; Monteith v. State, 114 Wis. 165, 89 N.W. 828; State v. Lamore, 53 Ore. 261, 99 P. Cummings v. State, 14 Ga.App. 441, 81 S.E. 366; Counts v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. App. 329, 9......