The herald., 1897-09-25
DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY
Phases Of Wrong-Doing Elucidated by
Judge Van Dyke
However Reprehensible and Immoral
His Conduct, He Is Not Amen
able Under the Law

people of Pasadena at the same time by
living adulterously with Miss Ollie
Fisher at the Los Angeles house in the
morally proper little burg, has been re-
leased from jail AMI is at liberty.
Haskins was examined before Justice
Rossiter and committed for trial on the
charge of living in a state of open and
notorious cohabitation and adultery, and
upon making application for discharge
before Judge Van Dyke it was on the
ground that such coumittal was with
out reasonable or probable cause.
Inasmuch as imm orality Is more or
less rife in every community, it is of the
greatest Importance that it should be
und erstood what constitutes breach o.
the social and moral law, which the law
does not necessarily punish, and an in
fraction of the statutory law which the
courts will be quick to punish. The facts
in the Haskins case, taken in connection
with the finding Of the court in the opin-
ion handed down yesterday by Judge
Van Dyke, illustrate the two phases Of
immoral living.
THE SLIP FROM GRACE
From the testimony 1t appeared that
the girl with whom the alleged adultery
on the part of the petitioner was COM
mitted, had been employed as a servant
at the Sierra Madre hotel, kept by the
petitioner; and that Mrs Haskins be-
came jealous or suspicious. owing to her
husbands improper conduct with the girl
and she was discharged and returned to
her home in Los Angeles. A few days
IL ~
toner called at the girls mothers house
in Los Angeles for the purpose Of taking
her back to the Sierra Madre hotel to
go to work, as stated by both of them.
That night, or rather about o'clock on
the morning Of the 23d, they arrived, 1t
appears, at the Los Angeles house in
Pasadena. The proprietor Of the house
testified that petitioner registered as
"Mr. Mar and waite" as shown by the
hotel register and he says, "It is written
so poorly that don't know whether that
is Mar or Was but took it to be Mar
and 'wafe' was supposed to mean wife"
He says when the petitioner registered
the girl was outside of the room in the
hall. Further, "They were there two or
three days, if not longer He came Mon
day morning and was there Monday
night, Tuesday night, and then paid
again; and then he paid again on Aug.
25th. They had room No. on the first
night, and then Tuesday night I gave
them room No. 2. He remained there
until Wednesday night and. then went
away, but she stayed. He paid
for the rooms and the meals" "Wit-
ness could not say positively" says
Judge Van Dyke, In reviewing the evil
dence, ''but thinks that the only time
he saw them together was the night they
came, and thinks they went to breakfast
together the next morning, but whether
they went to other meals together he
could not say. Never saw them around
the house together after the first night
Saw the girl there, but not the man.
The dining room girl testified that she
thinks she only saw them in the dining
room together two or three times. The
chambermaid testified that the girl had q
room there for two or three nights, as
stated, and that there was only one bed
in the room, but that she did not see the
petitioner there. The girl with whom
the adultery was alleged to have been
committed was also examined as a wit
ness, and denied that she and the peti-
toner ever slept together or had any i'm
proper connection; and gave as reason
for remaining at the Pasadena hotel
that she was waiting there until arrange
ments were made for her to go to the
Sierra Madre hotel to go to work. How
ever, taking the testimony all together
1t is sufficient to show clearly that
adultery was committed on the part of
the petitioner
PHASES OF WRONGDOING
But mere adultery has never been
penal offense in this state. And, up to
1872, adultery of any degree was not
penal offense. In that year an act was
passed on the subject. 1t reads:
Section l. Every person who lives in a
state of open and notorious cohabitation
and adultery is guilty of a misdemeanor.
and is punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars, or Imprisonment in
the county jail not exceeding one year, or
by both.
Section 2. If two persons, each being
married to another, live together in state
of open and notorious cohabitation and
adultery, each Is guilty of a felony and
is punished by Imprisonment in the states
prison not exceeding five years.
"The offense mentioned in the first
section of this act is what is known as
single adultery, and that of the second
section as double adultery, which is con-
sidered more heinous offense and
therefore made felony. The offense
charged against the petitioner falls un-
der the first section.
1T will be observed that the statute
requires that it should be open and no
torious cohabita ton and adultery; and
the words open and notorious coha BIZ
tation' are connected, and 1t requires
both of these elements. In an early
case in Massachusetts, under the stat
utes of 1884 OF that state. using similar
language, the court says: BY "coba Bit
ing" must be understood dwelling or
living together; not transient or sin
gle unlawful interview. The design of
the statute in this particular was to pre-
vent evil and indecent examples tend
ing to corrupt the public morals
LAX NOTIONS AS TO LAW
"Other states have followed in the
same line in the construction of similar
statutes
"In one case the court remarked:
Loose notions seem to prevail as to
what coha bitation is. 1t is not So
Journ, nor a hal Of visiting, nor even
a remaining with for a time. None of
these fall within the true iduea Of cohabi-
tation. The legal idea Of coha abitation
II ftof vx31 f<1 ,r,.toc xn.tf1