James v. Mickey

Citations

• 26 S.C. 270
• 2 S.E. 130
• 1887 S.C. LEXIS 46

Syllabus

<p>1. Finding of fact by the jury in a chancery case, approved by the judge, affirmed, there being testimony to support this finding.</p> <p>2. On an issue of marriage between two colored persons prior to 1865, the plaintiff introduced testimony to show a marriage by a clergyman at a certain time and place (which was contradicted), and also by manner of living, recognition, and reputation. Held, that the judge could not properly charge the jury that if they thought the particular ceremony alleged had not taken place, that the cohabitation after that date was concubinage.</p> <p>3. If these persons were not man and wife in December, 1865, and the man afterwards married another woman, that did not show that he had not duly married the plaintiff in the interim, and therefore the judge could not charge that the verdict must be against the alleged marriage in issue.</p> <p>4. The judge might properly say to the jury that loose declarations are not entitled to the same weight as those earnestly made, but his failure so to charge when requested, is not legal error.</p> <p>5. The issue being whether plaintiff was married to deceased, the judge did not err in telling the jury that they had nothing to do with the subsequent max-riage of deceased with one R., the context showing than the judge meant that this was not an issue submitted to the jury.</p> <p>6. In passing upon an issue of fact, it is for the Cix-cuit Judge to apply or not, as he pleases, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.</p>