State v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 11 September 1879
• Citation: 70 Me. 216
• Parties: STATE v. LEWIS B. PETERSON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

70 Me. 216

STATE v. LEWIS B. PETERSON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

September 11, 1879

ON EXCEPTIONS.

Indictment for incestuous fornication with defendant's daughter, Etta Peterson. The government introduced one Ebenezer Chandler, who showed his commission, as an ordained minister of the gospel, authorizing him to solemnize marriages, during the pleasure of the governor, issued by Governor Kent in 1841, and said commission was introduced in evidence. He was then (subject to objection) allowed to read his record of a marriage of Lewis B. Peterson and Mary J Gammon, solemized May 6, 1860, in Franklin county by him, and said record was put in as evidence, said commission and record being in due form. He was then asked if he recognized the prisoner at the bar, and his answer was: " I should not know that I had ever seen him." There was no other evidence from said Chandler of identity of the defendant as being the party that said Chandler married. There was evidence tending to show that the mother of the defendant's daughter with whom the crime is alleged to have been committed, bore the name of Mary Jane Gammon before her marriage. There was evidence tending to show that said Lewis B. Peterson and Mary Jane Gammon lived together as husband and wife from the date of the marriage to the time of said Mary Jane's death, and that they had during that time two and only two children, one daughter and one son, and the defendant testifying in his own behalf stated that the girl was his own daughter. The court submitted the question to the jury as a matter of fact upon this evidence, whether the defendant was lawfully married to said Mary Jane Gammon. There was evidence that this daughter called Etta, was the daughter of said Mary Jane. The defendant introduced evidence to show that the real name of the girl (with whom the crime is alleged to have been committed) is " Mary Etta Peterson," but that she is commonly called " Etta Peterson." Defendant's counsel contended that if her name was in fact Mary Etta Peterson, the defendant could not be found guilty under this indictment, but the court instructed the jury, that " if the defendant committed the crime with his daughter, and she is commonly and generally known by the name of Etta Peterson, that is sufficient." Defendant offered a memorandum, written on a piece of paper attached to, and covering a photograph, in the year 1878, purporting to be signed by said girl, for the purpose of showing how she wrote her name, but it was excluded by the court. The verdict was guilty.

The defendant filed a motion that the verdict be set aside for the reason that one of the jurors was related to the defendant within the sixth degree, and the evidence was taken to establish that fact. The motion was overruled by the court. The motion was as follows: " And now after verdict against him the defendant comes and moves that the verdict be set aside for the following reasons, viz: before the trial commenced the jurors who tried the case were inquired of by the...