Langtry v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Fjiom the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. Alex. McXiNstry-. “The prison er-was indicted for bigaifiy, án'-d1 pleaded n'ót -guilty. ..
Read the full summary
Fjiom the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. Alex. McXiNstry-. “The prison er-was indicted for bigaifiy, án'-d1 pleaded n'ót -guilty. .. The second' marriage was proved aiid admitted to have taken place in Mobile county, in May, 1857-.1 The defendant and the woman claiming to be his wife by the first marriage had lived1 together as'man and wife, and .claim ed each -other' as' such. > ¡ ‘ Several'' ’ Witnesses 1 testified to their living together, ancl to- their- recognition of each other as unan"1 and wife. No direet evidence 'of ihar-riage was offered by the State, nor ■ any…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
The record in this case presents the single question, whether, in a prosecution for bigamy, the first marriage may be proved by cohabitation, and the confessions of the party. In the ease of Ford v. Ford, 4 Ala. 142, this court said, “Upon an indictment for bigamy, and in the action for criminal conversation, the fact of the former marriage must be proved by the production of the record of the marriage, or by a witness present at the ceremony.”
In Morris v. Miller, 4 Burr. 2057, Lord Mansfield, in delivering the opinion of the court in a case of crim. con., said, “It shall not depend upon the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fenton v. ReedNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- People v. HumphreyNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Commonwealth v. LittlejohnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
- Ford v. FordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. HughesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- Fuquay v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Rogers v. McLeskeySupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Parker v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.