People v. Imes

• Decision Date: 21 July 1896
• Citation: 68 N.W. 157,110 Mich. 250
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. IMES.

68 N.W. 157

110 Mich. 250

PEOPLE v. IMES.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 21, 1896

Error to recorder's court of Detroit; Fitz William H. Chambers Judge.

George W. Imes was convicted of adultery, and brings error. Reversed.

Frank H. Dohany (Frank C. Moriarty, of counsel) for appellant.

Allan H. Frazer, Pros. Atty., and William H. Turner, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

HOOKER J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of adultery with one Edith Doe. The record contains all of the evidence taken upon the trial, and shows that no testimony was offered in behalf of the defendant. To prove the marriage of the defendant, the following evidence was introduced: (1) The testimony of the clergyman and others participating in the marriage ceremony in Ontario, who fully identified the parties; (2) admissions of the defendant that he cohabited for four weeks with his wife, the complainant; (3) his letter to complainant, in which he addressed her as wife. This testimony was all admissible. In addition, complainant testified to the marriage and cohabitation, and the marriage certificate was offered in evidence. The testimony of complainant was inadmissible. See People v. Isham (decided at the January term) 67 N.W. 819. It was not objected to, however, and no error is assigned upon its introduction. The marriage certificate which was received was made by the clergyman who testified to the facts that it stated, viz. that he performed a marriage ceremony between these parties who were identified. In the absence of proof of the law of Ontario this testimony was not sufficient to show a marriage ceremony in accordance with the law of that place, but the testimony of the witnesses was admissible to prove the fact of a marriage ceremony between the parties, which, if followed by cohabitation as husband and wife, would establish that relation. People v. McQuaid, 85 Mich. 127, 48 N.W. 161; Hemmings v. Smith, 4 Doug. 33; People v. Calder, 30 Mich. 85; Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 126; Rice, Ev. 800-805; People v. Lambert, 5 Mich. 367. The admission of the foreign certificate of marriage was erroneous, being hearsay. People v. Lambert, 5 Mich. 364. 2 How. Ann. St. � 6222, authorizes the introduction of domestic certificates of marriage, which are held admissible in criminal cases. See People v. Isham (Mich.) 67 N.W. 819. But foreign certificates stand upon a different footing. They have not the force of a church registry, which is admissible upon questions of legitimacy, date of birth, marriage, etc. See People v. Lambert, 5 Mich. 364. There is much conflict of authority upon the subject of proof of marriage in criminal cases. For a general discussion of the subject, see 3 Rice, Ev. pp. 800-811; Bish. St. Crimes, � 610; Taylor v. State, 2 Hawley, Am. Cr. Rep. 17, and note.

To prove the alleged adulterous intercourse, testimony was offered showing the relations between the defendant and Edith Doe; and one Mrs. Garrison was permitted to testify that Edith Doe told her, in the absence of defendant, that they had sexual intercourse. This Mrs. Garrison was a...