Vaughn v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1888 |
| Citation | 3 So. 530,83 Ala. 55 |
| Parties | VAUGHN v. STATE. BRAZIL v. SAME. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Macon county court; W. H. HURT, Judge.
Prosecutions for living in adultery.
Thos. N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The two defendants named above were separately tried on warrant and complaint for living together in adultery. Rachel waived a jury, and was tried by the presiding judge. Milton was tried by a jury. Both were convicted, and a fine of $100 assessed against each. Fine and costs not being paid by either, in each case there was sentence to hard labor for the county for the non-payment of the fine and costs. These sentences are in all respects regular, with a single exception, which we will notice further on. There seems to be no controversy as to the following facts: In 1880, the defendant Milton Brazil obtained a license, and, under it, was formally married to Silvia Vaughn; an authorized officer performing the ceremony. It is neither shown nor pretended that Silvia has died, and we must therefore presume that she still lives. In 1886, and continuing up to the time of the commencement of this prosecution, the defendants, Rachel Vaughn and Milton Brazil have lived and cohabited together, occupying the same bed and claiming to be husband and wife. This cohabitation has been in Macon county. The testimony tends to show that the said Milton and Rachel were formally married in the state of Mississippi in 1883.
The main defense relied on is that before the marriage of the said Milton and Silvia, in 1880, the latter (Silvia) had intermarried with one Bozeman, who was still living, and that, as a consequence, Milton's subsequent marriage with the said Silvia was bigamous and void; that, being void, it opposed no obstacle to his later marriage to Rachel, in 1883 and, as a necessary result, the cohabitation of Milton and Rachel, complained of in these prosecutions, was not adulterous, but lawful. So that the most important inquiry of fact was whether the said Silvia had been previously married to Bozeman. On that controverted inquiry the testimony was in conflict. Stated as the testimony is in the bills of exceptions, (they are copies of each other, so far as this question is concerned), it fails to produce satisfactory conviction that Silvia and Bozeman were ever married, and hence there is a failure to establish the invalidity of Milton's marriage with the former. That marriage not being shown to be invalid, the later cohabitation of Milton and Rachel as husband and wife as unlawful, notwithstanding they may have conformed to every requisite of a valid marriage. So, if there is nothing else in this case, the conviction must stand.
We will now treat the cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. State
...... 375 days' hard labor for costs incurred in the trial,. acted without authority of law (Code, §§ 7634, 7635), and,. while this is error, it is such as can be corrected by this. court. Bradley v. State, 69 Ala. 318, 324;. Miller v. State, 77 Ala. 41, 44; Vaughn v. State, 83 Ala. 55, 57, 3 So. 530; Johnson v. State, 94 Ala. 35, 42, 10 So. 667. . . We have. discussed all the assignments of error discussed in. appellant's brief, and have examined all other exceptions. in the record, and find no reversible error. The. defendant's sentence to ......
-
Boyd v. State
...that no injury resulted therefrom. Maxwell v. State, 89 Ala. 150, 164, 7 So. 824; Marks v. State, 87 Ala. 99, 6 So. 377; Vaughan v. State, 83 Ala. 55, 3 So. 530; Williams v. State, 83 Ala. 16, 3 So. 616; Mitchell v. State, 60 Ala. 26. To inquire and prove that the absent witnesses were negr......
- Lee Wilson & Co. v. State
-
McGinn v. State
...Judgment for a longer term than that authorized by law may be corrected and affirmed where the record discloses no other error. (Vaughan v. State, 83 Ala. 55; Webster Commonwealth, 5 Cush. [Mass.], 407; Chitty, Criminal Law, 722; Dodge v. People, 4 Neb. 226; In re Jones, 35 Neb. 499; State ......