State v. Williams
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Mankato of the offense set forth in the opinion and appealed from the judgment of conviction and from an order, Plymat, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Per curiam
Defendant was prosecuted under section 6557, G. S. 1894, for fornication, and appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The assignments of error present the question whether the evidence makes out a case of fornication within the meaning of the statute above referred to. The facts are that defendant and an unmarried woman occupied the same room at a hotel in Mankato, and had sexual intercourse with each other, on the night of April 3, 1904. There was no showing to' the effect that the parties lived together as husband and wife, or otherwise, and none that any act of sexual…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Luster v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1887
- State v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Pruner & Clark v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1886
- Turney v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. ZempelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- State v. GiesekeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Richey v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Thomas v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1926