State v. Hansbrough

• Decision Date: 10 May 1904
• Citation: 181 Mo. 348,80 S.W. 900
• Parties: STATE v. HANSBROUGH.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

80 S.W. 900

181 Mo. 348

STATE v. HANSBROUGH.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 10, 1904.

BIGAMY—INDICTMENT—JURISDICTION OF COURT —MARRIAGE — SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF — LIMITATIONS—PENDENCY OF FORMER INDICTMENT —QUESTIONS FOR JURY.

1. An indictment for bigamy, averring that the alleged bigamous marriage occurred in some county and city to the grand jurors unknown, does not, on its face, show that the circuit court of the county where the indictment was found had no jurisdiction of the case.

2. Rev. St. 1899, § 2422, providing that when an indictment shall be quashed, set aside, or reversed, the time during which the same was pending shall not be computed as part of the time of limitation prescribed for the offense, not being restricted in operation to any particular cause or causes for which the indictment may be quashed, set aside, or reversed, includes want of jurisdiction in the court.

3. While a marriage at common law requires no particular form or ceremony to make it valid, enough must be said and done by the contracting parties to make a contract.

4. In a prosecution for bigamy, proof of cohabitation, recognition of the parties by their friends and acquaintances as husband and wife, and holding themselves out as such for a period of 20 years, is not sufficient to show a contract of marriage, and thus overcome the presumption of innocence.

5. In a criminal prosecution, the questions as to the effect on limitations of the dismissal of a former indictment, and the presentation of the instant indictment, are for the court.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Frank R. Dearing, Judge.

William Hansbrough was convicted of bigamy, and appeals. Reversed.

Jos. J. Williams, Byrns & Bean, and Kleinschmidt & Reppy, for appellant. The Attorney General and Bruce Barnett, for the State.

BURGESS, J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of bigamy, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and three months' imprisonment in the county jail. He appeals.

"On January 25, 1902, which was during the January term, an indictment was returned and filed in the circuit court of Jefferson county, charging the defendant with bigamy. The unlawful marriage is charged to have been entered into on or about the 20th day of September, 1898, which was more than three years prior to the time of the filing of the indictment. To show that the offense was not barred by the statute of limitations, it is alleged in the indictment, and was proved in evidence, that a former indictment for the same offense had been filed against the defendant on the 15th day of September, 1900, and on the 13th day of January, 1902, had been dismissed, set aside, and nolle pros'd by the prosecuting attorney for the reason that said indictment was defective and not good. The maiden name of the woman whom the defendant first married was Louise Aubuchon, and it is charged that the marriage relation still existed between them at the time the defendant married Mrs. L. C. Brady, in September, 1898. In the former indictment the defendant was referred to as William Hansbrough, and the woman with whom he contracted the unlawful marriage as Mrs. Libby Brady, but the evidence shows that they were the identical parties who are referred to in the indictment upon which the defendant was tried and convicted. The state's evidence showed: That for twenty years the defendant and Louise Hansbrough lived together and cohabited as man and wife. They dwelt in the same house and occupied the same bed at night. She bore his name (Hansbrough), and he referred to her as his wife, and introduced her as such to his friends and acquaintances. That...