Morton v. State

Decision Date08 March 1919
Citation209 S.W. 644
PartiesMORTON et ux. v. STATE.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Appeal from Criminal Court, Davidson County; J. D. B. De Bow, Judge.

C. E. Morton and wife were convicted of violating the Bone Dry Law, and appeal. Affirmed.

Paul W. Hoggins, of Nashville, and John Hilldrop, of Madison, for Morton and wife.

Charles L. Cornelius, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LANSDEN, C. J.

The plaintiffs in error, who are man and wife, were indicted and convicted in the criminal court of Davidson county for violating the so-called Bone Dry Law (Acts 1917, c. 12).

In February, 1918, information came to the police officers of Nashville, Tenn., that an automobile load of whisky was en route from Hopkinsville, Ky., to Nashville. Police officers stationed themselves on the Hopkinsville road near Goodlettsville, in Davidson county, and blockaded the road and arrested plaintiffs in error. They searched the automobile and found "6 or 8" sacks in the automobile, each containing about 20 quarts of whisky.

The contention is made for Mrs. Morton that the proof falls to show that she had any knowledge of, or interest in, the whisky, and all that is shown is that she was riding in an automobile with her husband. It is said that she was under the legal duress of her husband, and although he is guilty, she is not, because her presence in the automobile will be attributed by the law to the duress of the husband. Many cases are cited in the brief of learned counsel for this proposition, but in the view which we take of the case it is not necessary to review them all. Shacklett v. Polk, 4 Heisk. 105; Lowry v. Naff, 4 Cold. 370.

Counsel cites the above cases together with many more, which hold in substance that the legal identity of the wife is merged in that of the husband at common law. The cases cited deal with estates of married women, and contain the general statement to the foregoing effect.

It was also the rule at common law that a married woman was not responsible for crimes committed in the presence of her husband, except murder and treason. However, for crimes committed out of the presence of the husband she was as capable of and as responsible for as if she were single. If she committed a crime in the presence of her husband, excepting murder and treason, it was presumed that she did so under constraint by him, and she was therefore excused, and he was presumably guilty. State v. Cleaves, 59 Me. 298, 8 Am. Rep. 422; Mulvey v. State, 43 Ala. 316, 94 Am. Dec. 684.

However, the presumption that she acted under the duress of her husband was small, and it might be rebutted by very slight circumstances. State v. Cleaves, supra; People v. Wright, 38 Mich. 744, 31 Am. Rep. 331.

This supposed duress of the wife by the fact of marriage, like all other doctrines built upon the legal identity of husband and wife, must depend upon the disability of the wife by virtue of marriage. By our Married Woman's ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • United States v. Anthony
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • September 14, 1956
    ...discussion and authorities cited in State v. Renslow, 1930, 211 Iowa 642, 230 N. W. 316, 71 A.L.R. 1111; Morton v. State of Tenn., 1919, 141 Tenn. 357, 209 S.W. 644, 4 A.L.R. 264. Even if one were to indulge the presumption, it is a weak one and may be rebutted by slight circumstances. 20 A......
  • Robinson v. Trousdale County
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1974
    ...the Court's conclusion. It is interesting to note, in view of cases hereinafter cited, the opinion of the Court in Morton v. State, 141 Tenn. 357, 209 S.W. 644 (1918), where it is 'By our Married Woman's Act of 1913 (Acts 1913, c. 26), the policy of this state was completely changed, so tha......
  • State v. Murray
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1926
    ...her husband, abrogates the " common-law rule mentioned. King v. City of Owensboro, 187 Ky. 21, 218 S. W. 297; Morton et ux. v. State, 141 Tenn. 357, 209 S.W. 644, 4 A. L. R. 264 ; State v. Hendricks,. 32 Kan. 559, 4 P. 1050. The Kansas case,. however, was a murder case. Murder, treason, and......
  • State v. Halbrook
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1925
    ...a conclusive one, but is rebuttable. State v. Ma Fop, 110 Mo. 7 [19 S. W. 222, 33 Am. St. Rep. 414]." In annotations to Morton v. State, 141 Tenn. 357, 209 S. W. 644, in 4 A. L. R. 264, 267, it is "If the wife acted of her own free will in committing the criminal acts complained of, her cov......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT