Richardson v. State
| Citation | 63 A. 317,103 Md. 112 |
| Parties | RICHARDSON v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1906 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore; Henry D. Harlan, Judge.
Charles H. Richardson was convicted of bigamy, and appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, BOYD, PAGE, PEARCE JONES, SCHMUCKER, and BURKE, JJ.
William S. Bansemer, for appellant.
Eugene O'Dunne and William S. Bryan, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
The traverser, Charles H. Richardson, was indicted in the criminal court of Baltimore for the crime of bigamy. He pleaded not guilty, and was tried by a jury in that court and convicted, and was sentenced to be confined in the Maryland penitentiary for the period of 18 months. From this judgment he appealed. The indictment contained two counts. The first count charged that on the 30th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1898, in the city of Baltimore, the traverser, being then married to and then the husband of a certain woman named Mollie K. Cole, feloniously did then and there marry and take to wife a certain other woman, Carrie E Seipel; his first wife, the said Mollie K. Cole, being then alive, and still his wife. The second count charged that the traverser on the 6th day of November, 1888, in the state of Maryland did marry one Mollie K. Cole, and her the said Mollie K. Cole then and there had for a wife, and that he thereafter, on the 30th day of March, 1898, in Baltimore city and state of Maryland, being then and there the husband of the said Mollie K. Cole, feloniously did marry and take to wife a certain other woman named Carrie E. Seipel, his said wife, the said Mollie K. Cole being then alive, and still his wife. In order to maintain the indictment, it was necessary for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following facts: First, that the traverser had married Carrie E. Seipel in the city of Baltimore as charged; and, second that another woman to whom he had been lawfully married, to wit, Mollie K. Cole, was then living. The jury before whom he elected to be tried was under the Constitution of the state the judges of the law and facts of the case. It was the duty of the court to determine all questions as to the admissibility of the evidence offered by the state to support the charge, but the question as to the weight and sufficiency in fact of the evidence to prove the allegations of the indictment was committed by the law to the exclusive judgment of the jury, subject, however to the power of the court for sufficient reasons to set aside the verdict of guilty. The record shows that a motion for a new trial was made, and that the motion was overruled.
In proof of the charge contained in the indictment the state produced a witness, Mary Richardson, who testified that she was a resident of Washington, D. C., and that she had been married to the defendant Charles H. Richardson for more than eight years, and that she had a son who was living with the defendant, and who was about 17 years old. She further testified that she was married to the defendant in the city of Washington. She then testified she had nothing to do with the prosecution of the traverser, and that she had been brought from Washington City as a witness. The state then called Carrie Seipel, the prosecuting witness, who testified that she married the defendant, Charles H. Richardson, in March, 1898, and that she was married at night at the rectory of St. Paul's Church on Charles street by Rev. Dr. Hodges; that she had never heard of the previous marriage of Richardson until about five months prior to the time of testifying; that the defendant had told her that he was a widower, and had showed her an undertaker's bill which he claimed was for burying his first wife. The witness was asked whether she had ever lived at the corner of High and Addison streets with Samuel Shed, to which she replied she had not, and that she had not lived with the defendant at No. 325 North Calvert street before their marriage. Dr. Hodges, rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Charles street, testified that he is, and was on March 30, 1898, a minister of the gospel, and that the records of his church showed that Carrie Seipel and Charles H. Richardson were married by him at the parsonage of said church on March 30, 1898.
The defendant on his own behalf testified: That he was engaged in a patent medicine business at Nos. 9 and 11 North Gay street Baltimore, in the year 1898; that some time in March, 1898, the defendant was introduced to the prosecuting witness, Carrie Seipel, by a man by the name of Howard Sloman, who was employed in the business by the defendant, and that said Carrie Seipel had been hanging around his place for some days before he made her acquaintance. That at the time he is alleged to have married Carrie Seipel, and for some days previous thereto, he had been on a protracted spree, and was unfit for business, and his business was being conducted by Howard Sloman, who collected his money, paid his bills, and kept his accounts. That a few days prior to the 30th day of March the defendant got on a spree at the room 325 North Calvert street. That on the Tuesday morning preceding the day of the alleged marriage, the defendant got on a severe spree of drunkenness, and remembers nothing whatever from that time until the Friday following that Tuesday, when he found himself in the room No. 325 North Calvert street recovering from the effects of a severe drunk. When he came to himself he asked the prosecuting witness, Carrie Seipel, how long he had been in the house, and she said to him, "You have been here since Tuesday morning," He then asked her if any money had been sent him from the store, and she replied, "$8." The defendant then said, "That is strange, because there ought to have been taken in between $16 and $18 a day," to which Carrie Seipel replied that they had only brought $8. The defendant then said he would go down to the store, and see what had happened, and why no more money had been sent him. That he did go to the store, and found that $68 had been sent up to him. He then returned to the room where the Seipel woman was, and told her that she had $68 of his money, and that he wanted it. Whereupon she put her hand under the table cover on a table in the room, and produced a paper which she said was a marriage certificate, and that he had married her on Wednesday following the day on which he had gone on a severe spree, and that he must now support her and take care of her, and if he did not do so she would prosecute him for bigamy, and send him to jail where he belonged. That he knew nothing of the license or marriage. That he told her then and there that she put up the job on him while he was drunk, and that he knew nothing about the marriage, and that she tricked him into it while he was in a drunken condition. That Carrie Seipel replied, "Well, that is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial