Caldwell v. StateCaldwell v. State
It was not necessary to aver in the indictment that the bigamous cohabitation occurred in this state, or within the county of Elmore. Said averment is disрensed Avith by § 4902 of the criminal code of 1896. The proof of venue was abundant.
The witness Wingo, a brother of the- first and legal wife, gave PAddence, Avhiсh if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, proved, defendant’s marriage to his sister in South Carolina in 1899, his living with her as husband, and that she Avas still living at the time оf the trial. For the purpose of supplementing this evidence, it Aims competent to prove acts declaratory or admissions of the defendant in recognition of the alleged first Avife as his legal spousе. The Avitness Wingo produced and identified certain letters written by defendant to the sister of the witness, addressed to Mrs. Minnie Caldwell, and in which the defendant called her his Avife and subscribed himself as her loving husband. The only tendency оf the letters was to sIioav the relation of husband and wife between the parties, and thus lay the predicate for the charge that the defendant’s second marriage was illegal. There was no fact of a private or confidential nature disclosed by the letters; and henсe Ave do not think, under the circumstances of this case, that the admissiоn in evidence of the letters, coupled with the testimony of the witness Wingо, who saw them Avhen delivered by the- post, violated the rule against allowing proof of confidential and private communications between husband and wife, noi intended to be made public. ' We are unable to reach the conclusion that any public policy would be infringed оr the peace of the family disturbed by showing that the hus
There was no material variance between thе names “Lydia” and “Liddie.” Greater differences between names than this have been held immaterial, both by this and other courts. The case is within the rule of idem sonans. The accent or emphasis in each name is uрon the first syllable. Every one knows how in rapid utterance final vowels and final syllables consisting of single vowels are slighted; and, if the two names werе spoken according to the usual manner and with the usual rapidity, it would bе very difficult to distinguish them. The point of difference is entirely too imperсeptible to raise any question of importance. — Edmundson v. State, 17 Ala. 179,
The cоurt charged the jury more favorably to the defendant than was his due. Tt might have held as a matter of law that no variance appearеd in the matter of the name of the woman with whom he (defendant) cohabitated under his second marriage. We have examined the other rulings, аlthough not argued in brief of appellant’s counsel, and we find no reversible error in any of them. There was no conflict in the evidence. Thе defendant made no pretense of any defense further than an еffort to show the name of the second Avife Avas “Liddie Edwards,” instead of “Lydia. EdAvards,” and no jury could have properly done otherwise than find him guilty. The trial court might well have charged the jury, upon Avritten request, to convict him if they believed the evidence beyond a. reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.