State v. Hutchinson

36 Me. 261
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 36 Me. 261 (State v. Hutchinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Hutchinson, 36 Me. 261 (Me. 1853).

Opinion

Appleton, J. —

The indictment in this case alleges that Eleazer Hutchinson of Gardiner, in the county of Kennebec, on the first day of November, A. D. 1852, at Gardiner aforesaid, he, the said Eleazer Hutchinson, being then and there a married man and having a lawful wife alive, did commit the crime of adultery with Lucy Hersey, the wife of one Moses Hersey, by having carnal knowledge of the body of her, the said Lucy Hersey,” &c. It is impossible to misunderstand the meaning of the language used in this indictment. One does not readily perceive what more is required to convey to an ordinary understanding a clear and distinct idea of the nature and character of the offence charged. It would savor more of niceness than of wisdom to discharge the defendant upon distinctions such as are raised in this case. In State v. Tibbetts, 35 Maine, 205, there was no allegation that the defendant was a married man, having a lawful wife alive, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. In Com. v. Reardon, 6 Cush. 79, Dewey, J., says, “ it is true, that if the party indicted is himself alleged to be a married man, the indictment will be good and sufficient in form, without any allegation that the person with whom he had sexual intercourse was a married woman. But it is no less true, that the indictment in such case may equally allege both the parties to the adultery to be married persons.” In the present case the allegation is full and distinct, that at the time set forth in the indictment the defendant was a married man. The offence is equally committed in such case, whether the woman is or is not married. Exceptions overruled.

Shepley, C. J., and Tenney, and Cutting, J. J., concurred.

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

Related

United States v. Doyle
4 D. Haw. 452 (D. Hawaii, 1914)
People ex rel. Sheldon v. Curtin
27 N.Y. Crim. 535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Agar v. State
94 N.E. 819 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1911)
State v. Chafin
103 P. 143 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1909)
Tomlinson v. People
102 Ill. App. 542 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
Clay v. State
3 Tex. Ct. App. 499 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Me. 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hutchinson-me-1853.