Sunday dispatch. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1845-1854, 1852-04-11
DOUBLE MARRIAGES., AGAIN.

Several letters have reached us, since the
publication of the articles relating to the
law of marriage, bigamy, ETC., that have
lately appeared in our columns, asking ad-
ditional and more specific information. AS
ours is not q law Office, that information
cannot be given; but we have few woEds
more to say on the subject, and couple Of
instances to cite additional to the Clayton
case, published in a former number.
It is not safe to attempt to give anything
like a general rule of law, applicable to
these cases, in classes. The whole tenor Of
the opinions of Courts, and their decisions,
seems to show, that, after all, each case de-
pends mainly upon its own peculiar circum-
stances. In the Clayton case, our own com
mon.s sense opinion is in favor Of the view
taken by Chief Justice Bronson, and Judges
Gardener and Jewett But majority Of
the eight Judges Of the Court of Appeals
held the other way; and Of course, that
stands as the decision.
The two following c9ses, which we have
copied from the books, will furnish some ad-
ditional LIGHT, for those who seek illumina-
ion. And indeed it is by such specific ap
nlioations of the law that any Of our read
ers who take an interest in the matter, can
best discover the bearings Of it, We think
moreover, that these cases are interesting
as illustrations of the entire inefhclenoy OF
legal restrictions, when carried too far, In
the relations between men and women.
The frst 10 the Case Of the People vs.. Hum
phrey, before the Supreme Court Of the
Ttats of New York, Nov. 1910, 81 in the 7th
vol. of Johuson's Reports, page ia
The prisoner, Humphrey, had been indict-
ed and tried at the Court Of Oyer and Ter
minar. in Ulster county for bigamy. His
marriage, (claimed to be the second, and
making the crime,) with A. L., in the then
August last, was duly proved Soon after
ward, a person calling herself Elizabeth
Humphrey, and claiming to be the previous
wife of the prisoner, appeared before Jus
tice Of the Peace, and charged the prisoner
with bigsmy.
On the examination before the magistrate,
Humphrey acknowledged that EEzabeth, who
was then present, was his wife, and that they
had been married about four years before
The counsel for the prisoner, when, IN due
time the case came before the regular court,
objected that the evidence Of the confession
of Humphrey Of his first marriage, was not
sufficient proof of marriage IN TACT Dut
lin the Ulster Oyer and Terminer) the OBJ
lection was overruled, and the prisoner was
convicted
Judgment, however, having been suspen-
ded, Humphrey was brought up to the Su-
preme Court on Habeas Corpus and the
question for the consideration Of the Court
was, whether the prisoner could be convict
cd Of bigamy on his own confession out OF
court, without aby other evidence OF mar
riage in fact.
The argument of the counsel for the prls-
ouer rested on decisions of Lord Mansiield
that, in prosecutions for bigamy, or actions
for Grim. con. marriage IN fact must be
proved. The Same doctrine was recognised
in other cases. And the Supreme Court rul-
ed that the confession Of Humphrey wSs not
sufficient evidence. The prisoner was dis
charged.
Next We have the case Of Reed against
Fenton, before the Supreme Court oI the
State of New York, February, 1909, as con-
tanned in Johnson's Reports, vol. 4th, page
81.
This case came up from the Justices Court
in New York city. The plsintit claimed 70
be the lawful widow Of William heed, ana,
as such, entitled to an annual payment IRON
certain Provident Society OF which VIII
liam Reed had been 3 member. Fentoni
for the Society denied that the plaintiff was
such lawful widow.
1t appeared that, in 170o, the plaintiff was
the lawful wife Of John Guest. Some time
in that year Guest left the State, for foreign
parts, and continued absent until lI92 ano
it was reported, and generally believed, that
he had died.
Accordingly, in 1892, the plaintiff marri.
ed William Reed But soon after Guest re-
turned, and continued in the State till 1900
when he died. He did not object to the CON
nection between the plaintiff and Reed; bat
said that he had no claim upon her, and ne
vcr interfered to disturb the harmony be-
tween them.
Thus, after the death Of Guest, the plain
tiff and Reed continued to cohabit, unit
Reeds death, in 1906; sustaining, mean
while good reputation in society. But NJ
solemnization Of marriage was proved t.
have taken place between the two, subsequent
to the death Of Guest.
Upon these facts the Justices Court haC
decided that the marriage with Reed was no
meretricious or void, and that the plainul
was entitled to the annuity. Against which
decision it was contended that the statute
concerning bigamy only purged the felony
and did not legalize the second marriage VIII
Reed, which, after the return Of Guest, va
msretricious; that, though the sunsequsn
cohabitation with Reed, as his wife, ate
Guests death, was sufficient TO charge hin
with ber debts, as her husband, yet that
when the wife comes in and claims right q
wife or widow, she must prove marriage l