People v. Harriden

1 Park. Cr. 344
CourtCourt Of Oyer And Terminer New York
DecidedMay 15, 1852
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 Park. Cr. 344 (People v. Harriden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court Of Oyer And Terminer New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Harriden, 1 Park. Cr. 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1852).

Opinion

The court decided that the acts and declarations of the defendant were competent evidence upon the question whether the defendant was the father of the witness, with whom it was alleged the offence was committed, but that it belonged to the jury to judge as to the weight due to the evidence; and that they must be satisfied by it the defendant was her father, or [346]*346they would not be warranted in finding him guilty. See 2 R. S. 139, orig. §3, declaring marriages between such relations as are therein named incestuous and' absolutely void, and that the section “ shall extend to illegitimate as well as legitimate children and relations,” also Regina v. St. Giles in the Fields, 11 Adolphus & Ellis, N. S. 173, 191, 203, 244; 2 Kent’s Com. 4th ed. 214. But if proof of marriage between the defendant and his reputed wife was necessary, whether under our law allowing marriage to be contracted by a present agreement between parties without any formal ceremony the rule which has prevailed in prosecution for bigamy, and a few other cases, requiring direct evidence of the marriage ought to be extended or longer adhered to. (See Clayton v. Wardell, 4 Comstock, 230 and opinions there given.)

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

Related

People v. Hopkins
38 Misc. 2d 459 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)
People v. Wilson
206 Misc. 880 (New York County Courts, 1954)
State v. Shear
8 N.W. 287 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Park. Cr. 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harriden-nyoytermct-1852.