State v. Damon

• Decision Date: 23 February 1903
• Citation: 97 Me. 323,54 A. 845
• Parties: STATE v. DAMON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

54 A. 845

97 Me. 323

STATE

v. DAMON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 23, 1903.

(Official.)

Exceptions from Superior Court, Cumberland County.

William W. Damon was indicted for polygamy, and, from an order overruling a demurrer, defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled, and judgment for the state.

Argued before WISWELL. C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, and SPEAR, JJ.

R. T. Whitehouse, Co. Arty., for the State.

D. A. Meaher, for defendant.

SAVAGE J. Demurrer to indictment for polygamy. The indictment was found in the superior court for Cumberland county.

1. The respondent claims that the indictment does not allege that he resided in Westbrook, or that he resided or had been apprehended in Cumberland county. The indictment describes him as "late of Westbrook, in the county of Cumberland," and then alleges that the polygamous marriage took place "at said Westbrook." There is no doubt but that, by virtue of the statutes creating it, the superior court for Cumberland county has general jurisdiction of indictable offenses committed "at Westbrook," in that county, including polygamy, unless the statute defining and affixing a punishment for polygamy in some way affects and changes that jurisdiction. We understand the counsel for the respondent to claim that it does so.

Rev. St. c. 124, § 4, after defining polygamy, concludes as follows: "And the indictment for such offense may be found and tried in the county where the offender resides, or where he or she is apprehended." And the respondent's contention is that, in order that the indictment should show the jurisdiction of the superior court, it must be averred, in substance, that at the time of the indictment the respondent resided, or had previously been apprehended, within the county of Cumberland. We do not think so. Usually an indictment must be found in the county in which the criminal act. was committed, and the court in a county has general jurisdiction over such crimes. But the Legislature may give the court in one county jurisdiction over crimes committed in another. It has provided that the crime of polygamy is indictable and punishable in any county where the offender may be found residing, or within which he has been apprehended. But this is not exclusive. It is merely an enlarged or special jurisdiction. It by no means ousts the court of the county in which the polygamy was committed of its general jurisdiction. The offender is not merely indictable in that county, but also in the county in which he resides or in which he is apprehended. An indictment is sufficient in this respect if it alleges that the crime was committed at some town within the county, or that the offender resided in the county at the time of indictment, or that he was apprehended within the county. The first objection to this indictment therefore fails.

2. It is averred in the indictment that the lawful wife was Rose Hoff Damon, and the respondent objects that the averment in the indictment, "the said Rose Hoff Damon not having been continuously absent for seven years...