Drake's Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 1033
Crown Cases
S C ante, pp. 25, 116
York Sp. Assizes, 1830 drake's case. (On an indictment for bigamy, proof must be given that the woman whom a man marries is of the name alleged in the indictment) [S C ante, pp. 25, 116 ] Prisoner was indicted for bigamy It was proved by a person who was present at the prisoner's second marriage, that the woman was married to him by the name of Hanmah Wilkinson-the name stated in the indictment, but there was no other proof that the woman in question was in fact Hannah Wilkinson. Parke, J , held the proof to be insufficient, and directed an acquittal. The learned. Judge, subsequently expressed his opinion that he was right, and added, that, to make the evidence sufficient, there should have been proof that he was then and there married to a certain woman by the name oft and who called herself, Hannah Wilkinson, " because the indictment undertakes that H W was the person : whereas, in fact, there was no proof that such was her name, ot that she had ever before gone by that name ; [260] and, if the banns had been published in a name which was not her own, and which she had never gone by, the mamage would be invalid." Note.-In Edward's case, R. & R C. C. 283, prisoner was charged with marrying Ann Simpson, his former wife being alive The second marriage was proved by the prisoner's hand-writing, to the note for the publication of banns, and his signature of " Charles Edwards," to the register of the second marriage. The hand-wnting of the name, " Anna. Simpson," in the same register of the second mamage, was proved by her father. The father likewise proved the prisoner's acknowledgment of his marriage to his daughter. The father also proved, that his daughter's name was Susanna not Anna ; and that he never knew or suspected that she had ever been known or called by- the name of Anna, till he heard of her having been married to the prisoner by that name. The jury found the prisoner guilty , but Knowlys, Common-Serjeant, doubted whether the evidence proved the allegation in the indictment as to the second marriage to Anna Simpson, and whether the indictment should not have charged that the prisoner was married to Susanna Simpson by the name of Anna. Simpson ; upon which doubts alone he reserved the case for the opinion of the Judges. [261] " At a meeting of all the Judges, in Michaelmas Term, 1814, they held, that the prisoner's having signed the note for the publication...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE QUEEN v THOMAS FANNING. [Crown Cases Reserved.]
...Law Rep. 207. Yelverton v. Yelverton 10 Jur., N. S. 1215. Rex v. PensonENR 5 C. & P. 412. Regina BrawnENR 1 C. & K. 144. Drake's caseENR 1 Lewin, 25. Graham's caseENR 2 Lewin, 97. Regina v. PoveyENR 1 Dears. C. C. 32. Burt v. BurtENR 2 S. & T. 288. The Queen v. MillisENR 10 Cl. & Fin. 688. ......