State v. Smith

Citation32 Tex. 167
PartiesTHE STATE v. J. P. SMITH AND ANOTHER.
Decision Date01 January 1869
CourtSupreme Court of Texas
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

1. Fornication is not a punishable offense under the laws of this state. The case of The State v. Foster, 31 Tex. 578, to the same effect, cited and relied on.

APPEAL from Smith.

The indictment charged Joseph P. Smith and Mary Jane Butler with living and cohabiting together in fornication, alleging that they were both unmarried.

The court below quashed the indictment, on exceptions of defendant that it charged no offense against the laws of the state.

W. H. Andrews, Acting Attorney General, for the state.

No brief for the appellees.

LINDSAY, J.

Fornication is charged in this indictment as the offense of these defendants. At the Galveston session (1869) of this court, in the case of The State of Texas v. John Foster, it was decided that the moral offense of fornication, not having been defined in the criminal code, it is not punishable under the law as it now exists. The decision in that settles this case.

The judgment of the court below, quashing the indictment, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Barnett v. Phelps
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1920
    ...was cognizable only in the ecclesiastical courts. 1 Bishop's New Cr. Law, §§ 38, 501; State v. Moore, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 136; State v. Smith, 32 Tex. 167; 2 Wharton Cr. Law Ed.) §§ 117, 1741; 1 A. & E. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) 747; 13 A. & E. Ency. of Law (2d. Ed.) 1119. Nor did repeated acts of forn......
  • Griffin v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1869

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