State v. Willis

• Decision Date: 31 January 1894
• Citation: 24 S.W. 1008,119 Mo. 485
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

24 S.W. 1008

119 Mo. 485

STATE v. WILLIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

January 31, 1894.

WITNESS — COMPETENCY OF WIFE.

A wife cannot testify against her husband when he is tried for a crime, over his objection.

Appeal from circuit court, Lafayette county; John E. Ryland, Judge.

David Willis was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Reversed.

U. G. Phetzing, for appellant. R. F. Walker, Atty. Gen., and Wm. Aull, Pros. Atty., for the State.

BURGESS, J.

At the March term, 1893, of the criminal court of Lafayette county, the defendant was convicted of uttering and publishing, as true and genuine, a certain promissory note for $65, which purported to have been signed by himself and his wife, Adeline Willis, and attested by one Abraham Hobson. His punishment was fixed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. The case is here on his appeal. The facts are as follows: During the month of April, 1892, David Mitchell sold to the defendant a horse at $65; that, for and in consideration and in payment for the horse, the defendant delivered to Mitchell a certain promissory note, purporting to be of the value of $65, and to have been signed by David Willis (defendant) and Adeline Willis, his wife, and attested by Abraham Hobson; that the signatures of Adeline Willis and Abraham Hobson were made by their marks, — which note Mitchell accepted in payment of the horse. Defendant and his wife were not living together at the time, she having moved into Johnson county. Hobson testified that he neither wrote, nor authorized anybody to write, his name to the note as a witness; that defendant told him that he had bought the horse, and paid for it, and that he did not owe a nickel on the horse. Adeline Willis, wife of the defendant, testified, over the objection of the defendant, that she did not sign the note in question, nor authorize anybody to sign it for her. Defendant testified that he mailed the note to his wife at Holden, Mo., and requested her to sign it with him; that in a few days thereafter he received the note by mail from his wife; that, when he received it, it bore the signature of his wife and the witness Hobson; that he delivered the note to Mr. Mitchell in payment for the horse.

There is but one single point in the case presented for our consideration, and that is the action of the trial court in permitting the wife of defendant to testify against him, over his objections. At common law the rule was that a husband and wife could not testify for or against each other in any legal proceeding in which the other was a...