Bethany v. State

<p>1.—Bigamy—Void Marriage—Theory of Defense—Bigamous Marriage.</p> <p>Where defendant’s theory of defense was that the alleged marriage was not followed by co-habitation, and that the minister who performed the ceremony omitted some of the usual formula, etc., but the record showed that defendant obtained a license and the ceremony was performed by the minister, this completed the violation of the law, though said marriage was void. The word “marry” used in the statute as applied to the second marriage does not mean a valid one. Following Hooter v. State, 88 Texas Grim. Rep., 265.</p> <p>it.—Same—Knowledge of Second Wife.</p> <p>The fact that the alleged second wife at the time of the second marriage knew that the first marriage was undissolved is of no consequence. Following Burks v. State, 50 Texas Grim. Rep., 47.</p> <p>3. —Same—Rehearing—Former Living Wife—Evidence.</p> <p>Where appellant for the first time, in his motion for rehearing insisted that the evidence failed to show that the former wife was living at the time defendant entered into the bigamous marriage, but the record showed that his former wife was living and was actually in the courthouse at the time of the trial, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>4. —Same—Intent—Marriage Contract—Marriage Ceremony.</p> <p>Where appellant contended that his intention was that he and his last alleged wife did not intend to actually marry, but to enter into a marriage contract to be consummated later, but the record showed that the minister who performed the marriage testified that no such understanding or agreement was mentioned, and that they were regularly married under a license duly returned as required by law, there is no reversible error.</p>