The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1879-07-12
Ignorance of Law.

Francis Lawton in "a law io,,r.
nal, dlscourses as follows in re-.
gard to crimes committed in 20.
horance OF the fact that they ar,,
unlawful:
ahat ignorance of law is not a
defense is generally concefl+.d
A conspicuous illustration of this
IS to be found in the case of Miss
anthony, who was convicted a
snort time since in New York If
Illegal voting. She set up AZ ! d.
tense that she believed that sh.
was Ill law entitled to VOTE and
tnat sil" had been 80 advised bv
competent authorities. This w.s
neld not to avail her, and under
Judge Hunts express directions
Shc was convicted. 1t has also
been held not to be IL defense TO
an Indictment tor adultery that
the defendant erroneousiy but
honestly believed that she had
been legally divorced. Were This
not the law government woull
come to an end.
Ignorance of law would also ha
at premium if men could rave
plurality of wives GU the pronnJ
that suck plurality is legal: or
could stuff ballot boxes on the
ground that they knew no law
forbldding such cxcesses; or
could violate police regulations
on the GROUND that they did nos
know that such police regulations
existed. The most obtuse and
stolil of criminals would he ,hos.
whom the law would most favor. ;.
ana II We conceive of a person to,
tally ignorant Of law, such d per.
son. on this theory, would be to-
tally flee from criminal res,,onsi>
bility.
fauatics. also, would be reliey.
ed from civil restraint in propor.
ton to the intensity of their tana.
tlcls'n; and the very element of
fierce infatuatIon which wonld
add to their dangerousuess would
add to their immunity. The late
decision OF the supreme court of
the United States in the ,wlyga.
my case, however, has tiually dis
posed OF this kind of defense. BE.
lief III the nnconstitutionality ola
low; belief in it's violation of -
higher law; belief in it's conflict
with conscientious duly, will be
10 defense to all indictment for
dlsobedlence to such law. Aud
even conscientious belief
that All act is right-as labor bv
a jew on Sunday in coDtrayen-
ton of the Sunday laws-will not
prevent snch act from being in
dictable when made 81 by the
State.
Ignorance of fact, however.
presents questions far more intri.
cate; aud as TO this defe, Sc wa
may lay down the following pro,
positions
When TO an Offense knowledps
OF, certain facts is essential, then
ignorance of these facts is a de,
Tense. When Il statute makes an
act indictable, irrespective of gull
ty knowledge, then ignorance of
TACT is no defense. To an ilict.
,nent for bigalny it is no defense
that the defendant, IL woman. hon
estly believed (withln the limit OF
seven years from the time he was
last heard frOm) that her husband
was dead. And an Indictment has
been sustained against IA mau for
a woman who believed
herself to be widow, although
eleven years had elapsed since
she had last seen or heard from
her husband whom she had lett
it being held by the court that tho
st 'tutory exceptions do not apply
t" the deserting party. 1t has been
further held that when "a guilty
party IN Il divorce suit marries
again without leave of court this
being legally essrnti,D during the
life OF the other party, aud after
ward obtains such leave, an hon.
est belief that the second mar
r'age is or has become legal has
no effect in making it 50 aud pro
tecting the parties.