Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, W.T. [i.e. Wis.]) 1843-1844, 1844-08-24
DIVORCE AND POLIGAMY.
Singular and Interesting Case,
SUPREME JUDICIAL CoURT, BosToN. July 22.-
Before M. Justice Wide

Before M. Justice Vide
His Honor decreed a divorce a pinculO on
the libel of Mehiiable Mash VS.. Peter Mash,
Jr., under The following remarkable and some
what romantic circumstances:-in 1886 the
ihelant was married TO Peter Mash, Jr.. a:
Beverly, Mass, and lived with him in Lynn
and Boston until 1898, when. one morning
before breakfast, Mash said he was going out,
would be back TO breakfast, but did not return,
and was never heard Of until four years after
wards. In the mean time the libellant had
made every possible inquiry, had written TO
all places she supposed her husband might
have gone to, and could hear nothing of him.
After about four years. in 1910, she became
acquainted with William Barrett, who ad.
dressed her, and in the honest belief Of her
husbands death. they were married in three
months after. Six weeks after this second
marriage Mash, the first husband, returned.
AZ the Municipal Court in October, lS43. she
was indicted on the Revised Statutes, chap.
1870, sec. % II any person who has former
husband or wife living, shall marry another, or
continued to cohabt with such second husband
OF wife in this state, he or she shall be deem
ed guilty Of polygamy, except sec. 3d. this
provision shall not extend to any person whose
husband or wife shall have been continually
remaining beyond sea. or shall have voluntari-
" Withdrawn from the other, and remained
absent for the space Of seven years together.
The party marrying again not knowing Inc
other to be living within that time.
The court, Chief Justice Williams, instrue.
ted the Jury lha, if husband or wife married
within seven years, though believing the par.
" dead. they were guilty OF blgamy II turned
out that the absent husband or wife was living
at the time of The second marriage. The jury
returned verdict of guilty, accompanied with
a statement sigued by all the jury, that there
was no moral gull, or the part Of the defend
ant, and recommending the smallest sentence
the law would allow.
The question on the construction OF the STAT
ute never having been settled by the Supreme
Court. it was carried up by exceptions, which
were overrnlej, and the instruction OF Chiet
Justice Williams sustained. The party was
then ordered to appear fer sentence, having
been on bail since her trial in the municlpaI
court. Her counsel stated the facts In the
case, upon which Judge Wilde suggested that
ii was misfortune rather than crime, ana
the defendant ought not 10 be sentenced at ALL
but ought to be honored. The question then
arose whether pardon could be granted be-
tore sentence was pronounced, ana IL Oeihg
the opinion Of the Judge that It could, the de.
fendanI's counsel applied to the Governor and
council. and obtained pardon. which he plead
in writing. and the whole court were of opin-
ion that the power of pardon existed immedi-
aely upon conviction and before sentence, but
not before conviction. The defendant MAS
then fully discharged.
She then applied fol divorce from her hos
hand. and proved that from the time he lefi
her, he had been living with a woman in Con-
nec,ieut 10 whom he pretended TO have been
married, and 5y whom he had a child. and that
this was 1he reasoa he had concealed his exis'
teDcs from her. The question then arose
whether the divorce could be granted, in con-
sequence Of the second marriage Of the liheil-
ant, fcs il she had committed adultery she
could nc; be divorced for the like act n the
olhs' party. Her counsel coatended 6rs,. thai
the pardCn ha5 relieved her from all the civil
disabilities consequent open the eosTic'i0a ioi