TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth v. Littlejohn

Commonwealth versus Simeon Littlejohn and Margery Barbarick

Commonwealth v. Littlejohn, 15 Mass. 163 (1818)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1818
Citations
15 Mass. 163
Summary
This was an indictment against the defendants for lewdly and lasciviously associating and cohabiting together, the said Margery being alleged to be the wife of Thomas Barbarick. At the trial, the Solicitor-General offered to prove the marriage by the testimony of a sister of the said Thomas. She testified that, about twelve years since, the said Thomas and Margery left the witness’s house for the declared purpose of going to the house of a clergyman, about two miles distant, in order to be by him joined in marriage ; that, after an absence sufficient for the purpose, they returned, declaring that they were married ; and that they lived together as man and wife, having several children, until a year since, when the husband was committed to the state prison. The jury having found the defendants guilty, a new trial was moved for, on account of the admission of the said evidence. And it was resolved by the whole Court, that the evidence was insufficient. It was not the best which the case admitted. If these persons were married, there must be better evidence of the fact. It could be proved by the record of the clergyman, or, at any rate, by the testimony of persons actually present. The verdict was accordingly set aside, (a)

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

Opinion

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

Upon an indictment against two persons for lascivious cohabitation, one of the parties be'ing married, such marriage must be proved by the record of the clergyman, or by witnesses present at the ceremony.

Quære whether, as the allegation was no otherwise material but as being ue scriptrve of the person intended, the proof of marriage was 'not sufficient. — Vide 3 Starkie, Ev. 1580. — Sull's case, Leach, 1005. — Mary Graham’s case, Leach, 619.— State vs. France, Overt. R. 434. — 2 Phil. Ev. 286, 7th Land. ed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1827–1828: 11839–1840: 21847–1848: 11849–1850: 11853–1854: 21857–1858: 11867–1868: 11875–1876: 11879–1880: 11883–1884: 11885–1886: 21895–1896: 11903–1904: 11905–1906: 118272026peak 1839 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Hughes35 Kan. 626 (1886)
  2. Commonwealth v. Hayden28 L.R.A. 318 (Mass. 1895)
  3. West v. State1 Wis. 209 (1853)
  4. State v. Roswell6 Conn. 446 (1827)
  5. Langtry v. State30 Ala. 536 (1857)
  6. Jacobsen v. Siddal7 P. 108 (Or. 1885)

Most recent

  1. Bates v. State19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 189 (Oh. Circ. Ct., Allen 1906)
  2. In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Schmidt4 Mills Surr. 182 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1904)
  3. Commonwealth v. Hayden28 L.R.A. 318 (Mass. 1895)
  4. State v. Hughes35 Kan. 626 (1886)
  5. Jacobsen v. Siddal7 P. 108 (Or. 1885)
  6. Dumas v. State14 Tex. Ct. App. 464 (1883)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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