From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Giesea

Supreme Court of California
Jun 30, 1882
61 Cal. 53 (Cal. 1882)

Summary

In People v. Giesea, 61 Cal. 53, [93 Am. Dec. 257], it is held that an allegation of the place of the first marriage is unnecessary.

Summary of this case from People v. Priestley

Opinion

         Appeal from a judgment for the defendant on demurrer in the Superior Court of the County of Kern. Brundage, J.

         COUNSEL

          A. L. Hart, Attorney General, for Appellant.

         No brief on file for Respondent.


         OPINION

         In Bank. The Court:

         Information for bigamy. The Court sustained the demurrer to the information on the ground that it does not state at what place the defendant was first married. But in this respect the District Attorney appears to have followed the precedents given by Archbold and Wharton, and we do not think that the code requires anything more.

         Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to the Court below to overrule the demurrer, with leave to the defendant to plead to the information.


Summaries of

People v. Giesea

Supreme Court of California
Jun 30, 1882
61 Cal. 53 (Cal. 1882)

In People v. Giesea, 61 Cal. 53, [93 Am. Dec. 257], it is held that an allegation of the place of the first marriage is unnecessary.

Summary of this case from People v. Priestley
Case details for

People v. Giesea

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE v. FREDRICK E. GIESEA

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jun 30, 1882

Citations

61 Cal. 53 (Cal. 1882)

Citing Cases

People v. Priestley

It is immaterial when or where the first marriage took place if the accused, at the time of the second…

People v. Ellis

In other words, bigamy may be punished in this state if the second marriage occurs here even if the first…