Wright v. State

• Decision Date: 14 December 1892
• Citation: 20 S.W. 756
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
• Parties: WRIGHT v. STATE.

20 S.W. 756

WRIGHT v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 14, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Burnett county. W. A. BLACKBURN, Judge.

W. C. Wright was convicted of seduction, and appeals. Reversed.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of seduction, and his punishment assessed at four years in the penitentiary, from which he appeals.

There are only two questions that need be considered. The defendant, when the evidence of the state was introduced, and before the court had charged the jury, and while the prosecutrix was upon the stand, in the presence of the court and jury, in open court, holding a marriage license duly issued, stated to said prosecutrix that in good faith he then and there offered to marry her, and if she would accept him his honor there and then could marry them; and that he held the marriage license in his hand authorizing the marriage rite. To this offer, before Miss Nesbitt could answer, the district attorney objected, and asked leave to contest the good faith of the offer. Defendant objected to the contest on the ground that the only way to test his good faith was for Miss Nesbitt to have accepted his offer of marriage, and for the court to agree to perform the ceremony. The court overruled this objection, and allowed the district attorney to make the contest, who proved by several witnesses that he said he would not marry Miss Nesbitt unless compelled to, and he would not live with her. Thereupon the defendant was duly sworn, and under the oath, and with the license in his hand, again said to Miss Nesbitt that if she would marry him and live with him, he would not only marry her, but would live with her, and to the best of his ability discharge all his marital duties towards her. Thereupon Miss Nesbitt said to defendant: "I most positively decline to marry you or to live with you. I would not marry any man who treated a woman as you have done me." Thereupon the counsel moved to dismiss the prosecution, and instruct the jury to acquit the defendant. The court declined upon the ground that under the evidence he did not think that defendant intended in good faith to marry Miss Nesbitt, and live with her. This testimony was fully set forth in a bill of exceptions. It is signed by the court with the explanation that when the offer was made the prosecuting witness, Miss Nesbitt, was silent. That it was then the district attorney proposed to test the question of good faith. That upon the introduction of the testimony the court said, "The parties may marry if they wish to do so," and Miss Nesbitt refused to consent, and the court ordered the trial to proceed.

R. H. Ward and J. G. Cook, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMKINS, J.

1. Article 816, Pen. Code, declares that if the parties marry each other at any time before the conviction of defendant, or if the defendant in good faith offers to marry the female so seduced, no prosecution shall take place, or, if begun, it shall be dismissed. The learned judge appears to have construed "the offer in good faith," spoken of in the statute, to require something more than a bare submission to the marriage rites; that in the "offer" of the defendant must be included the promise to live with, protect, and support; in short, do a husband's part by the prosecutrix. Such, however, is not the statute. The law goes no further than the marriage vow; then it must leave the parties. When he marries her, in the homely language of olden times, "he makes an honest woman of her." He can marry no other woman during her life without a divorce. Mr. Wharton lays down the law correctly when he...