, 1880-03-18
CLARENCE DAVIS.
He Valves d Continuance and
Goes Back to Jail.
His Counsel Quotes an Ohio Case
Which Is Much to tile
Point.


morning nj 10 o'clock befure .Justfce Wilson.
Tho guping crowd wns lcss tllnn that 0f the
day before, for tito reason TINT The court
attaches got possession uf the rom first, nlIu
compelled tho gnMg to cool Its heels OH the
outside.
When tho case was called, Mr.. Manchester
raised tho additional point tint the tlcfeutl-
ants a1lltlavlt for continuance was Insult.
Client There were allegations Ut "tllle dill
griAce," but there WIS nothing In tho ailltln-
ylt to csinblsli tho fact tlIat lie lind used
| such diligence ns the Inv required. Tlle gun-
tleihar was going on 10 elaborate llfA nrKu-
Ment, when the Court tustt him tint Ills vfows
werc with lin, md tint liz desired to llear
from tho other altle. Mr.. Manchester sat
down highly pleased.
Mr.. Van Bursn got UP and beEnn to reply
to the Charge Of not using duet!ilfgcucc. Tho
substance Of his remarks WIS TINT he had
Ind only two duys-Satnrttny and Monday
TO get tho records md tho witnesses.
Col. Cameron appeared nboMs this time,
and said ho proposed TO Introduce nn
AFFIDAVIT ny Mis-. MAuutE DAVIS {No. 81
setting forth that she never had another lius-
! band than Clarence e. Davis.
Mr.. Van Burcn said 1t was tho first timo he
had over heard Of u countcr-aflltlayit of stlGl
n character introduced on tho bearing uf II
1nOlton for n continuance. But lie supposed
there would bo allitlnyIts from nil tic wives,
and that they lthe wives) would be puraded to
tile crowd for effect
After some further wrnnxling, which, was
not Observation-Disclosures Col Cameron with.
tlrew tho affidavit temporarily, promising to
bring Mp agNin. Iho 81 MsilbseqMent turn Ut
MIR. Van Dure1l, ut the Courts suggestion,
proceeded to argue tho !t'!terln'Ity OF tho VI.
legged evidence set firth 1T Davis' Ai'lduyit
filed thy previous afternoon,o-,tho records by
which lia proposed to prove the second ulld
third marriages null and void.
! THE CITATION WHICH CAME THE NEAREST
to fitting the present ease WINS tr0m the tVes-
cri. LniD J0nr'lnt, Vol. = Msge 13l,-tit9 easy
9 ts sats y q ohS w. s stsr y I%r n trIs , n
ty, g., Mt the October term, 1876 Tho follow
ing IL II statement Ut the cnse:
Peter A[noru. Aug. ~ l7ul, at Rockingham
ess fse VIII Xi S4 a'9sa a s Ssy X Ss''s s WIFI 's a
left her, removed to 1.ognn County, o. md,
nrtis. IFS ilrst wife still living, but having In
VI Wers ss er ess%se fasys ,ao su RieS
the year. 1870 t!lo first wife .lied., Some two
ysars nfterwards Is Abandoned l's J.. sefond e,n9.
c1s' T1fs' aa sSS Msv Il 1s1 was r1s,S sv to Flf H.
se seeona a11slfty @lfay sti lv!"s E in I saa conty s
Thu defendant was indicted for. unlawtully
nlurrylng prlsgillu 1IeAry. leaving another
| wife, Mary Richards, then living. The dc
triett oIi, this agrcet state OF facts. THO
points submitted for the defense were us fol-
l0ws:,
Henry lle llnd not II wife living us charged.
| injury richards never bccamo his wife, be-
cause Mt tho time lle married her he Ind MI
other. wife llying-hts, tr,le wlfe--:nild tho
marriage to Mary Richards was, therefore,
Tho crime Of bigamy is defined by statute:
| III uny married PERSON, having u husband 1r
wife living, stlnll marry" ets. Defendant Is
not guilty unless AfAry Richards was Ills
'rhe marriage to Mary Richards was void
by statute ISL, providing that persons not
having husband or wife living inay bn Joined
~ l.arrIuge." a contract ln violation Ut lnw
| Tho marriage OF Mary Richards was void
by statute. and equally void by common Inv,
md by common law 9 party must ha aho To
cilil marry, having u wils living; such imer-
felitlnnt's wife.
tho S atori.es @ y Mage eiear tat o i' esryat ty @
could not be fnurd, guilty upon, tho fncts,
| ind thB Jury acenrdingly returned Il verdict
! Ut not guilty. The Court then ordered tho
s or ISie Dsy s''st1y II rryy 10 iwey ary nS Re
| nu!s. having another wlfa {tl!o uMe married
III Virginla) living. a speeLnl Grand Jury
wns lm pnneled. WHO found MI indictment
gMilty, aid was b. Gii lie W Court s:ntrca'i to
lures years' imprisonment In tho Pcn!ten-
tlnry.
cLEyEILY FITTED THIS TO TIE CASE IN
| HAND.
The first wife IN tho Moore case died, after
| MDOI0's AeCOntl marriage, Wills III the Davis
casa the first wife 0btninea n divorce after
the sccond narrluge.. That sccol,! 'narriage,
III sisa MaG fs sbls ws e e @ sarn 5 q f1S Ssay na
,l1tt the jury finally found him guilty Of that
ri,nrgc. Iii this cAsr. wililu tl,a seeOil,l MIR
rlaEc wls null aMl voi!!, Davis might have
n!nte hiMse,f liable to tito chnrgc. Of blgalny
laws of lIlinols, no otfelsG--lf It wnru an Of
fense-has!nE 6een coIhm,lttel herc: The
,narrlasu Of Day.s to tho Dntroit wife {No. y
was also void, for thu REASON tint that wlro
i,nt! II husband living. ut tho time,
md was therefore unable to contract.
| Alr. Van Duren was .abent tn elaborate
matters by producing other authorities relied
| upon to prove TINT tia second, anl Third inur-
rlagcS Were 0f III account III INV, when
TIE coulsr INTERRUPTED nlsf,
md gnve u ilew turn to tho COURSE nf events.
II doil't think tltore Is n,ly eausU shown
for eontlnu.nee,n snid lie, "Gecnuse y. tho
sWear ss,, IL his own behalf. Is thcre a"y doubt
"'Not II blt." saih Col. Cameron, rea.1Ily.
n!!a l1ns sworn lIere," n.ltlel tho CoArt.
marriage contracted by nnnther wolnMn TX
ccpt on ln'or!uatlon nnd belief, AepeMl!ng un
t9 sf rseSga &c slth sytSs is yh'e W. want 't"e to
lilo it.s undertaken to do it," WIS tho dry
resN'!Se nf tho Curt.
receE.is?" askeI Mr. Van l}.irun.
"'Tl!b party ran state tile tleis Ad II they
lttlt r.tttfrtp.l hnti ttfs lIiu