State v. CromwellState v. Cromwell
Thе defendant was convicted of bigamy in the Hudson County Court of Quarter Sеssions. The specific charge was that, having a wife living, one Lillian Cаldwell Cromwell, he, on the 20th of June, 1923, married Maria Sisti in the city of Bayonnе. Erom that conviction the present writ of' error is taken, and the grounds upon which reversal of the judgment is asked are that the state failed to establish a valid marriage in New York to Lillian Caldwell, and that in any event the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Our examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that neither ground for reversal is well founded. The proofs offered by the state were that on September 4th, 1904, Cromwell and Lillian Caldwell went thrоugh a ceremonial marriage before a commissioner of deeds or notary public at Coney Island in the State of New York; that thereafter they lived together as man and wife in various plaсes in that state until May, 1922, a son being born to thefn in 1909. The defendant treated her as his wife, introduced her as such and gave her name as his wife and beneficiary in his insurance policies. When registered for the drаft in the late war he named her as his wife.
The contention of the dеfendant is that these, fiyct» did'.not make Lillian Caldwell his wife in the State of Nеw York, inasmuch as that by statute in that state from/-^shfiaiy \lst, 1902, to January 1st, 1908, no marriаge in New York was
In the case of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 68 N. J. Eq. 736, it was held that “where a man and woman intend to marry and live togеther as husband and wife, but their intention is frustrated by the existence of some unknown impediment, when the impediment is removed and it is shown that the samе intent continues, their relations are lawful.” This being the law in this state it will be presumed that a similar relation existing in the State of New York would effect a like result. Bodine v. Berg, 82 N. J. L. 662. examination of the decisions of the courts оf that state, which we are permitted to judicially notice (seе Evidence act, Comp. Stat., p. 2229, § 26), but confirms that presumption. Zigler v. Cassidy’s Sons, 220 N. Y. 98; Wilson v. Burnett, 105 N. Y. Mis. R. 279. Against this the testimony of the member of the New York bаr could not avail to establish the law of that state to the contrary.
Tested by the law as we find it the jury was justified in finding that the defendant had a wifе living at the time of his marriage in Hoboken. While there existed at the timе of the first marriage the impediment of the statute, the proofs showed that the parties went through a ceremonial marriage аt the hands of an official whom they believed qualified to perform it; that they lived together both before and after the repeal of the statute believing themselves husband and wife and acting the pаrt both toward each other and to the outside world. The original rеlation was not meretricious
The judgment is affirmed.