Commonwealth v. Blood
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for adultery. At the trial in the superior court, before Morton, J., the defendant admitted that he was formerly married to one Mary Warner who was still living at Hartford in Connecticut and had never been to California; and also his act of cohabitation with another woman at Fall River, since the date of his marriage to Mary Warner and during the time charged in the indictment.
Read the full summary
Indictment for adultery. At the trial in the superior court, before Morton, J., the defendant admitted that he was formerly married to one Mary Warner who was still living at Hartford in Connecticut and had never been to California; and also his act of cohabitation with another woman at Fall River, since the date of his marriage to Mary Warner and during the time charged in the indictment. The government rested its case on these admissions; and the defendant, for the purpose of proving that in California he had obtained a divorce from Mary Warner, offered in evidence a document purporting to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Coükt.
The paper offered as a record was not admissible. There was no proof that the court in California had jurisdiction of the cause and the parties. Although a court of record, its jurisdiction over the subject of divorce is a special authority not recognized by the common law, and its proceedings in relation to it stand on the same footing with those of courts of limited and inferior jurisdiction; so that its powers in the case must be shown and appear to have beén strictly pursued. Exceptions overruled».
2Cited by15 opinions
- Guilford v. LoveTexas Supreme Court · 1878
- In Re the Estate of HolmesNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- State v. ArmingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- Kelley v. KelleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- State v. GoodrichWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1878
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.