Commonwealth v. Lee

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Lee

9 N.E. 11, 143 Mass. 100, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 26

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 24, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 N.E. 11 (Commonwealth v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Lee, 9 N.E. 11, 143 Mass. 100, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 26 (Mass. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, J.

Evidence of lewd conduct of the alleged first wife was not admissible to contradict her testimony to a marriage in New York. But evidence should have been admitted that her companion was a lewd woman at the time she answered the defendant’s sister’s summons, “ Come back into the house where you belong.” The answer, “I will not, I have a right to do as I have a mind to,” was ambiguous in itself. It might have had any one of various shades of meaning, some of which would not, and some of which would, be inconsistent with her being married to the defendant. For instance, it might have meant only a declaration of independence as against the defendant’s sister. On the other hand, it might have meant a denial of duty to any one in the house, including her alleged husband. If she had been in the company of a doctor and a sister of charity, bent on an errand of mercy, it might be construed one way; if with a prostitute, it might very naturally be construed the other.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Holmes, J.

Evidence of lewd conduct of the alleged first wife was not admissible to contradict her testimony to a marriage in New York. But evidence should have been admitted that her companion was a lewd woman at the time she answered the defendant’s sister’s summons, “ Come back into the house where you belong.” The answer, “I will not, I have a right to do as I have a mind to,” was ambiguous in itself. It might have had any one of various shades of meaning, some of which would not, and some of which would, be inconsistent with her being married to the defendant. For instance, it might have meant only a declaration of independence as against the defendant’s sister. On the other hand, it might have meant a denial of duty to any one in the house, including her alleged husband. If she had been in the company of a doctor and a sister of charity, bent on an errand of mercy, it might be construed one way; if with a prostitute, it might very naturally be construed the other.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.E. 11, 143 Mass. 100, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-lee-mass-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack