The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-08-02

SMcuLAs Cash. the Boston Supreme Court, a
decree Of divorce pineulo was issued under the fol-
lowing extraordinary circums tances:
Meheiable Mash was married in 1886 to Peter
Mash, Jr, and lived two years with him. One morn
ing after breakfast he disappeared, and she did not
hear of him Tor four years. Believing him 10 be dead
she married William Barrett and six weeks after
wards, her first husband, Mash, returned. She then
separated from her second husband and her irsl
husband took the child and left the State She then
went to live with the Rev. Mr. Hague, but making
known some alterations which lost him his situation
as Pastor he had her indicted for bgamy and sent to
JAIL on which indictment she tried Chief Jus
'ice Williams instructed the jury, that il husband
or wife married within seven years. though believing
the party dead they were guilty Of bgamy If il turn
ed out that the absent husband or wife was living at
the time OF the second marriage The Jury return
ed verdict OF guilty, accompanied with a statement
signed by all the jury, that there no moral guilt on
The part OF defendant and recommending the smallest
sentence the law would allow. The iestion on the
construction Of the statute never having been settled
by the Supreme Court it was carried up by ercep.
ions, which were oyerruled and the instruction OF
Chief Justice Williams sustained The party was
then ordered TO appear for sentence having been on
bail since her trial IN the municipal court Her
counsel stated the facts IN the case upon which
Judge Wilde suggested that il was a misfortune, ra-
Their than crime and the defendant ought not to be
sentenced at all, but ought 10 be pardoned The
question then arose, whether pardon could be grant
ed before sentence was pronou need, and heing the
opinion Of the Judge that II could the defendant.
counsel applied TO the Governor and Council and
obtained pardon, which he plead in writing,
and the whole court were Of opinion that the
power OF pardon existed Immediately upon con-
sicton and before sentence, but not before a con-
viciion. The defendant was then fully discharged.
She then applied for divorce from her husband
and proved that from the time he left her he bad
been living with a woman in Connecticut, to whom
he pretended TO have been married. and by whom
he bad child, and that this was the reason he had
concealed his existence from her The question
then arose whether the divorce could be granted. in
consequence OF the second marriage Of the libcant
for II she had committed adultery she could not be
divorced for the like act IN the other party. Her
counsel commended FIRST that the pardon had relieved
her from all the civil disabilities consequent upon
the conviction for polygsmy, and thus removed all
the consequences OF the act II il had YER been
committed. Sec nd, that the crime Of poygamy
under the statute, technical offence lndepen-
dent OF INTENT but that adultery could not be com
mitted without the consent Of the wilI-hat II wo
man we're deceived by one representing her husba nd
there could be no crime, and II she married again
honestly believing hersefa widow, the act of living
with her second husband was as virtuous as living
with the first until she ascortaned that the first bus
band was siive. The judge, upon the advice of all
the Judges, sus aimed the last view provided the tes
hmony should show that the second marriage was
entered into with an honest intent This was fuIIy
established by the most satisfactory testimony and
decree OF divorce was granted with nmony The
second husband was married again before the di.
vorce. The difficulty IN this case could have been
readily avoided bad the lady waited three wears lon.
ger, being the time appointed by law.