United States v. Maxwell
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Indictment [against George Maxwell] for bigamy. The right of peremptory challenge was allowed to the defendant -without being questioned by the attorney for the United States. objected to a witness because interested; the witness having a suit against the defendant for necessaries furnished to the first wife. The verdict in this cause is prima facie evidence of the marriage in that suit.
Read the full summary
Indictment [against George Maxwell] for bigamy. The right of peremptory challenge was allowed to the defendant -without being questioned by the attorney for the United States. objected to a witness because interested; the witness having a suit against the defendant for necessaries furnished to the first wife. The verdict in this cause is prima facie evidence of the marriage in that suit. So in an indictment for forgery, the party whose name is forged is not a competent witness. So in perjury, a conviction is conclusive evidence in another suit. Bul. N. P. 245; Boyle v. Boyle, 8 Mod. 164; S.…
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT (CRANCH, Chief Judge, doubting)
decided that the witness was incompetent, by reason of the interest, being inclined to think that the verdict might be given in evidence for the witness in his suit for the support of the first wife.
Mr. Jones, for the United States, offered a nolle prosequi to be entered, and the jury was discharged.
Mr. Jones, then moved the court to bind the prisoner over to answer to such an indictment at the next term.
THE COURT said they should take time to consider till tomorrow.
Mr. Key objected that the court could not recommit the prisoner, as there was no charge…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Withaup v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
- United States v. AndersonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1834
- United States v. BowerDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1914