Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 235, Oct. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Schuylkill Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 596, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Margaret Fitzpatrick. Indictment for adultery. Before Shay, J. At the trial the prisoner’s husband, who was in court as a witness on her behalf, was called by the prosecution to the witness stand, and the commonwealth offered to prove by him the fact of marriage between himself and the prisoner.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 235, Oct. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Schuylkill Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 596, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Margaret Fitzpatrick. Indictment for adultery. Before Shay, J. At the trial the prisoner’s husband, who was in court as a witness on her behalf, was called by the prosecution to the witness stand, and the commonwealth offered to prove by him the fact of marriage between himself and the prisoner. Objected to by defendant. The husband, Hugh Fitzpatrick, of Margaret Fitzpatrick, the defendant in the case, charged with adultery, is called by…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cubiam,
The act of 1887 provides, that either husband or wife shall *530be competent to prove the fact of marriage in support of a criminal charge of adultery alleged to have been committed by or with the other. According to the construction contended for by the appellant, the statute simply deprives the accused or implicated party of the right to object to the admission of the testimony of her husband or his wife as to the fact of marriage, but does not deprive the latter of the right to refuse to give such testimony. We are unable to adopt this construction. The rule of the common law having…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BarrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Carr v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1923