Case ID: ga_94/html/0587-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howard v. The State.
    The crime of adultery and fornication being one in which the woman is necessarily guilty as well as the man, the husband of the woman is an incompetent witness against the man to prove the act of adultery and fornication, although by statute persons accused of this offence must be severally indicted, and although the acquittal of one will not operate to acquit the other. The incompetency of the husband as a witness existed prior to the evidence act of 1866, and the exception in that act in these words: “ Nothing herein contained shall apply to any action, suit, or proceeding, or bill, in any court of law or equity, instituted in consequence of adultery, or to any action for breach of promise of marriage,” embraces both criminal and civil proceedings. Acts of 1866, p. 188.
    April 16, 1894.
    
      Judgment reversed.
    
    Accusation of adultery and fornication. Before Judge Westmoreland. Criminal court of Atlanta. January term, 1894.
   The only witness for the State was the husband of the woman with whom defendant was alleged to have committed the crime. It was objected that the witness was incompetent to testify to a mime affecting his wife; and the objection was overruled.

George P. Roberts, for plaintiff in error.

Lewis W. Thomas, solicitor, contra.