Silva v. Silva

Decision Date17 April 1937
Citation7 N.E.2d 601,297 Mass. 217
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

December 29, 1936.

Present: RUGG, C.


Evidence Competency, Previous criminal proceedings. Res Judicata. Judgment.

At the hearing of a libellee's objections to the entry of a decree of divorce absolute after a decree nisi on the ground of desertion evidence of the conviction of the libellant of nonsupport in a prosecution under

G. L. (Ter.

Ed.) c. 273 Section 1, rightly was excluded.

LIBEL for divorce, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Bristol on July 16, 1935.

After a decree of divorce nisi on the ground of desertion, the libellee's objections to the entry of a decree absolute were heard by Hitch, J., who entered a decree dismissing the objections and ordering that the decree nisi become absolute. The libellee appealed.

No argument nor brief for the libellee. E. A. Hathaway, for the libellant, submitted a brief.

QUA, J. Within six months after a decree nisi for desertion the libellee filed a statement of objections. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 208, Section 21. Rule 40 of the Probate Courts (1934). One objection was that the libellant "has been convicted of neglect of family," with a reference to G.L.c. 273, Section 1. At the hearing on the objections the trial judge excluded evidence as to criminal proceedings on complaints by the libellee against the libellant, apparently for nonsupport. Upon one of these the libellant was found guilty and ordered to pay weekly for the support of the libellee. G. L. (Ter Ed.) c. 273, Section 5. Upon another he was fined and ordered to pay the fine to a probation officer for the benefit of the libellee. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 273, Section 3. Although the record is not plain, we assume for the purposes of this decision that in at least one instance the libellant was convicted for unreasonably neglecting or refusing to support the libellee within the period of the alleged desertion by the libellee for which the decree nisi was granted.

The ruling was right. We think that the "traditional rule" by which "a defendant convicted of crime is entitled to retry the question whether he actually committed the crime when that issue arises in a civil proceeding to which the Commonwealth is not a party" (Minasian v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 295 Mass. 1 , 2-4, and cases cited) must be deemed to be law in this jurisdiction. Mead v. Boston, 3 Cush. 404, 407. Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 110 Mass. 410. Commonwealth v. Cheney, 141 Mass. 102 , 106. Parker v. Kenyon, 112 Mass. 264. Fowle v. Child, 164 Mass. 210 . Fitzgerald v. Lewis, 164 Mass. 495. Commonwealth v. Simmons, 165 Mass. 356 , 358. In Commonwealth v. Waters, 11 Gray, 81, 83, it is said that "The judgment is effectual only between those upon whom its operation is mutual, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Silva v. Silva
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1937

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