Commonwealth v. Warren
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment on the Pub. Sts. c. 207, § 4, alleging that the defendant, on April 21, 187.1, at Manchester, in the State of New Hampshire, was lawfully married to one Celeste Scruton; and also that the defendant, on June 80, 1886, at Braintree, in this Commonwealth, unlawfully married one Anastatia Ring.
Read the full summary
Indictment on the Pub. Sts. c. 207, § 4, alleging that the defendant, on April 21, 187.1, at Manchester, in the State of New Hampshire, was lawfully married to one Celeste Scruton; and also that the defendant, on June 80, 1886, at Braintree, in this Commonwealth, unlawfully married one Anastatia Ring. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., the government called the first wife as a witness, and she testified, on cross-examination, that her name, at the time of her marriage with the defendant, was Celestia Scruton, and not Celeste. The witness pronounced “ Celeste ” in two…
1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.
The province of the court and jury in' cases like the present, is governed by the following rule: if two names, spelt differently, necessarily sound alike, the court may, as matter of law, pronounce them to be idem sonans ; but, if they do not necessarily sound alike, the question whether they are idem sonans is a question of fact for the jury. The Queen v. Davis, 4 New Sess. Cas. 611; 5 Cox C. C. 237; 2 Den. C. C. 233. In that case, the judge ruled, as matter of law, that “Darius” and “Trius” were idem sonans. The conviction was quashed, Coleridge, J., saying, that, “if the question had been…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. JenningsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by10 opinions
- Evans v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1927
- State v. ThompsonMontana Supreme Court · 1891
- Erickson v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1912
- Santolini v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. PerkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.