State v. Comstock

• Decision Date: 18 May 1912
• Citation: 86 Vt. 42,83 A. 539
• Parties: STATE v. COMSTOCK.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

83 A. 539

86 Vt. 42

STATE

v. COMSTOCK.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Windsor.

May 18, 1912.

Exceptions from Windsor County Court; Willard W. Miles, Judge.

Minnie Comstock was convicted of adultery, and she brings exceptions. Overruled.

The information charges that respondent committed adultery with one John Duling at Windsor, Vt., on July 14, 1910, and the state claimed conviction only for an offense committed on that day. The evidence of the state tended to show that about 10 o'clock in the forenoon of that day two officers, Thomas and Taylor, went to the Lapine House in that town, rapped at the front door, and were admitted by Mrs. Lapine; that they immediately went upstairs to a certain bedroom, found its door locked, rapped, and were admitted by respondent, who was barefooted, and clad only in her night robe; that on the floor in the bedroom they found a pair of men's shoes and a pair of women's shoes, and on a chair therein a pair of trousers and other articles of a man's clothing, and on the foot of the bed a woman's clothing; that on the further side of the bed they found said John Duling, and that the bedclothes on the front side of the bed were "rumpled" as if some other person had occupied that part of the bed; that Thomas then told respondent and Duling that he had warrants for their arrest for the crime of adultery, and ordered them to dress; that just then the officers' attention was attracted by sounds from an adjoining room, and they stepped into the hall, where Taylor remained while Thomas went into the adjoining room; that immediately thereafter Thomas heard a noise from the outside of the house, and thereupon went into the bedroom where he had left respondent and Duling, and found Duling gone, the only window in the room wide open, and respondent sitting on a hassock at the foot of the bed. There was no exit from the bedroom other than the open window and the door outside of which stood Taylor.

The evidence of the state also tended to show that about 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening of July 3, 1910, respondent, her sister, Hugh Duling, and said John Duling entered by the window a certain paint shop in said Windsor, and that those four were seen in that shop the next day, July 4th, drinking out of bottles, and one of the men and a woman, not respondent, lying on the floor, the woman having her clothes up, and that in the evening of July 4th those four were seen hurriedly to leave that paint shop by the back door and run away. The state relied on the evidence as to what occurred in the paint shop on July 4th only to show an adulterous disposition on the part of respondent; and her only objection thereto was to showing that Hugh Duling was one of the parties, "because he is not on trial here."

Respondent testified that when Thomas made the arrest in the bedroom he said: "I have a warrant for you for adultery with Hugh Duling, and a warrant for John Duling for adultery with Emma Marcy." Both officers denied that Thomas said that, and respondent offered in evidence the information against John Duling...