Case ID: mass_105/html/0464-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Gray, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth vs. George F. Godsoe.
    An indictment for polygamy, averring that the second marriage occurred on a certain day and the defendant afterwards cohabited with the second wife for six months, sufficiently specifies the time of the offence, and may be sustained by evidence of his cohabitation with her at any time within the six months next succeeding that day.
    Indictment for polygamy, found at October term 1869 of the superior court, under the Gen. Sts. e. 165, § 4. The indictment averred that the defendant was lawfully married to Anna R. Balch at Newbury port on December 18, 1862, and on December 1, 1868, at Portsmouth in New Hampshire, unlawfully did marry Sarah E. Lowell, said Anna still living and he never having been lawfully divorced from her, “ and that the said George afterwards did cohabit and continue to cohabit with the said Sarah as his second wife,” at Haverhill in this Commonwealth, “for a long space of time, to wit, for the space of six months ; ” and it negatived the excepted cases under § 5 as to this period of unlawful cohabitation.
    Before the jury were empanelled, the defendant moved to quash the indictment for insufficiency in its specification of the time of the offence; but Wilkinson, J., overruled the motion. On the trial, the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence tending to prove his cohabitation with Sarah E. Lowell in this Commonwealth, on the ground that no such cohabitation was well charged in the indictment; but the objection was overruled, and the introduction of such evidence was permitted as to any time between December 1, 1868, and June 1, 1869. The jury found the defendant guilty; and he alleged exceptions.
    
      S. B. Ives, Jr., for the defendant.
    
      C. Allen, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   Gray, J.

The case of Commonwealth v. Bradley, 2 Cush, 553, is precisely in point. According to the judgment there rendered, this indictment is sufficient, and the ruling as to the admission of evidence affords the defendant no ground of exception The questions raised are purely formal and technical, and .we are of opinion that the decision in that case must govern this.

Exceptions overruled.