Show THE OUTRAGE UPON LEGAL WIVES A legislative JUDICIAL DECISION JUDGE Z OPINION IN THE LANGTON CASE counsel for the prosecution in this case has called the lawful wife of the defendant for the purpose of questioning i her as to the defendants coa abita tiou tion with another sumati duri ig lit he existence of the marriage belati n jati I 1 b tier her and the question Is Is she c u paytent witness without lis co sex i reference haa been made to the utah statutes tat utes of 1876 1878 gud and also to the statutes of 1884 which is the last statute upon the subject on page of the latter being under chapter 2 title 10 see sec 1154 provides all persons without except exception ion otherwise than as is specified in the next two sections who having organs of sense can perceive and perceiving can make known their perceptions to others may be witnesses therefore neither parties nor other persons who have an interest in the event of ef an action or proceeding are excluded nor those who have been convicted of crime nor persons on account of their opinions on matters of religious belief although in every case the credibility of the witness may be drawn in question by the manner in which he testifies iby the character of his testimony or by evidence affecting his bis character for truth honesty or integrity teg rity or his motives or by contradictory evidence and the jury are the excle exclusive siad judges of his credibility 11 the section read is a general oue one and provides thai tha all persons without exception otherwise than is specified in the next two sections who having organs ot of sense can perceive and perceiving ce iving can makel known their perceptions to others way may be witnesses section 1155 relates to certain exceptions eions and section 1156 1150 being one oce of the sections referred to in the first SeCt section IOD provides there are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate ate therefore a person cannot be examined as a witness in the tol following lowing cases A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without tier her consent nor a wife for or against tier her husband without his consent nor can either during duriac the marriage or afterwards be consent of the other examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the mar tage but atals exception does not apply to so a civil action or proceed ins ine by one against the other nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other the provision by its express terms applies to both civil and criminal actions because it says this exception shall not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other nor to a criminal action or proceeding so that it covers hoth both classes of cases the question therefore is Is the crime of unlawful cohabitation by the husband a crime against his bis lawful wife I 1 see no escape from that conclusion cl if therefore unla unlawful cohabitation is a crime committed by the husband against his wife under this section she would be a competent witness against him at common law according to the rules of evidence if the husband as faulted his wife or committed a battery her or committed any personal injury to her ahe was a competent witness in a criminal prosecution in ae name of the state or the people this statute is broader it does not use the term personal injury but it uses afie term crime commit committed teo by one against the other it is true that all public offenses in one sense are crimes against the public but when the injury is to some personal right of a party it Is regarded as a crime against that party the relation of marriage of co course a rsm gly gives es to the wife certain rights the ri right g ut to the society of abe husband ol 01 the ra right that he be shall remain pure and commit no offense by adultery or by association with any other woman if he does it is a wrong or injury to the rights which she possesses by bi virtue of the marriage relation now the question is if a man takes another woman into his house bouse or to his bis bed to his society and treats her as his wife is that a violation ot oi his cifes rights it is such a violation of churbe courbe as would entitle her to a divorce if a man assaults his wife if he does des not touch her but makes an unlawful attempt coupled with a present ability to commit a violent injury jury upon her that is an assault and that wrong against her would forfeit his right to the confidence and to the protection by law of that confidence which ex ests between him and his wife the reason of it is and it seemed to be based upon the necessity that she die should be a witness in that case that was the old rule rate that assault of course is not a physical injury to her there is no battery but it is an injury to her feelings by intimidating her possibly or by hurting her feelings as we sometimes say it is an injury to her feelings now the quest question ioa is is it not a greater injury to a womans comans feelings is it not a greater outrage against her nature and against her rights for a man to take to his bis bed another woman and commit adultery with her to the injury of his wife if she appreciates her rients as a wife it seems to me ine that the conclusion is irresistible in the one case it may be fear I 1 in u the other case it may be another kind of an injury but in either case it is an injury u ry to the fedij feelings if it is an assault it may be an injury to her er by intimidating her or it may be to her feelings elings te in the want 0 trtat abat protection and support which he ought to vive give her and that regard and attention that hat he augat to pay lier her aud and that affection which he ought to manifest ma to tier her in the other CASK case where he takes a woman int into oits its bed it is an injury to her if bhe he as a woman oas a proper sense of her woman un ua lea tes 9 sue may be by some superstition or some other idea led to believe that it is not buethe but the general rule must be bat bat when a man takes faked another woman an ana 4 treats her 11 er as a wile in the preb ence and to the knowledge of ills law ism ful fal wife it is an injury to her feelings it is a violation of her rights it is a deprivation of those affections and feelings of regard and sym sympathy and support that she is entitled titled to lo and an it is an injury to her it is as much a wrong against her and crime against her as it she were assaulted or 6 eaten beaten or as if she were threatened with violence or driven out of her house bouse and turned into the streets it 1 is as plin a violation of the which the law gives her by virtue of tile the marriage which the law sanctions and which it guarantees guran tees her the benefits of I 1 I 1 am of the opinion that under this statute which says but tais exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the otner she is a competent witness in a case of va a case of bigamy or in a cae or unlawful cohabitation in the iowa case which was cited 55 iowa the state vs sloan upon a statute which seems to be substantially ly the same as this statute under consideration the court says mrs sloan the first wife was allowed to testify in behall behalf of the state against the defendants objection section of the code provides that neither the husband nor the wife shall be a witness against the other except in a criminal proceeding tor for a crime committed one against the other in our opinion if the defendant is guilty of bigamy he committed a crime against his bis wife we think she is a competent witness it will be seen that the langu language agg of the iowa statute and ours is substantially the same bame this decision in iowa seems to have been the unanimous decision of the court I 1 am of the opinion that when any man marries another woman while ile he has one wife living with him and if he commits unlawful cohabitation with her that lie he forfeits forfeit that protection which the law gives him he nas has forfeited and des destroyed troed that confidence by his own criminal act and he has baa no right light when he is ia prosecuted for such an offense to claim that the law shall preserve it sacred I 1 aw aid of the opinion that the wife Is a competent witness |