TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sullivan v. Hurley

Kate Sullivan v. Dennis Hurley

Sullivan v. Hurley, 18 N.E. 3 (Mass. 1888)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 1, 1888
Citations
18 N.E. 3147 Mass. 3871888 Mass. LEXIS 113
Headnotes
Bastardy Complaint— Evidence — Admissions in Letters. At the trial of a complaint under the bastardy act, Pub. Sts. c. 85, letters of the respondent to the complainant, written at intervals after the alleged begetting and before her delivery, which tend to show a suspicious intimacy between them and contain expressions fairly leading to the inference of their prior criminal intercourse, are admissible in evidence, in the discretion of the presiding judge.
Summary
Complaint under the bastardy act, Pub. Sts. c. 85. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., the complainant introduced evidence tending to show that she was delivered of a full time bastard child on February 28, 1888; and that the respondent had sexual intercourse with her on the last of May, 1887, at which time the child was begotten. The complainant was then permitted to introduce in evidence, against the respondent’s objection, certain letters written by him to her on August 17, 1887, on December 10, 1887, and on January 4, 1888. These letters, which were those of a very illiterate person, alluded to the pregnancy of another woman, and contained expressions evidently referring to the intercourse of the sexes and to the respondent’s desire to have such intercourse, and in them the respondent further expressed the hope that, when he should visit the complainant, he would find her “ alone, so we can have a good time,” and offered to give the complainant “ bed room” if she would come and see him on some night. The judge instructed the jury as to these letters as follows: “ The letters which were written by this defendant to the plaintiff, after the time within which this child must have been begotten, are not to be considered as evidence of the paternity of the child, unless you find in them some language which recognizes or acknowledges sexual intercourse between the writer and the girl to whom the letters were written, either before or after the time when the child must have been begotten.” The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the respondent alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court.

In support of the complainant’s testimony, that the respondent had sexual intercourse with her in May, 1887, it was competent for her to put in evidence any acts or declarations of the respondent, either before or after the alleged intercourse, which show the relations between the parties, and which tend to show that at the time of the alleged intercourse a criminal disposition existed between them. Thayer v. Thayer, 101 Mass. 111 . Beers v. Jackman, 103 Mass. 192 .

In the case at bar, the letters of the respondent to the complainant which were admitted in evidence show a suspicious intimacy between them which was necessarily the result of their previous acquaintance and relations ; they contain expressions which could hardly be used between persons whose relations were innocent, and which fairly lead to the inference that the parties had been guilty of criminal intercourse. They were therefore admissible, within the discretion of the presiding judge.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1890: 11914: 11915: 11917: 11922: 11927: 11990: 12024: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Hammond148 P. 420 (Utah 1915)
  2. People v. Thompson106 N.E. 73 (N.Y. 1914)
  3. Commonwealth v. Bemis242 Mass. 582 (1922)
  4. Commonwealth v. LaSota557 N.E.2d 34 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)
  5. Negus v. Foote117 N.E. 351 (Mass. 1917)
  6. Francis v. Rosa24 N.E. 1024 (Mass. 1890)

Most recent

  1. Altschuler v. Chubb National Insurance CompanyNo. 4:21-cv-00119 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2024)
  2. Commonwealth v. LaSota557 N.E.2d 34 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)
  3. Cocke v. MacLeod258 P. 980 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
  4. Commonwealth v. Bemis242 Mass. 582 (1922)
  5. Negus v. Foote117 N.E. 351 (Mass. 1917)
  6. State v. Hammond148 P. 420 (Utah 1915)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Thayer v. Thayer, 101 Mass. 111 (1869) 111
Beers v. Jackman, 103 Mass. 192 (1869) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list