
    THE PEOPLE against HUMPHREY.
    NEW-YORK,
    Nov. 1810.
    In proseeut~ons for ~qatn~, the mere confession of the party is cot sufficient evidence of Ihe first marriage; but there must be proof of a s~arriage in fact.
    THE prisoner was indicted and tried, at the last oyer and terminer in Ulster county, for bigamy. The marriage of the defendant with A~ S. on th~ 1st of August last was duly proved. It was also proved that a short time afterwards, a person calling h~rself Elizabeth Hump/zrey~ and the wife of the prisoner, peared before a justice of the peace, and charged him with the offe~ice of bigamy. On his examination before the magistrate, the prisoner voluntarily acknowledged that Elizabeth, who was then present, was his wife, and that they had been married about four' years before.' The counsel for the prisoner objected, that the evidence of the confession of the prisoner of his first marriage was not sufficient proof of a marriage in fact, but `the objection wa~ overruled, and the prisoner was convicted.. The judgment having been suspended, he was now brought up on habeas corpus'; and the juestion raised for the consideration of the court, was, whether the pri.. soner could be convicted of bigamy, on his own confes~ sion out of court, without any other evidence whatever of a marriage in fact ~
    Sudcnn, for the prisoner. iTe cited 1 East's F. C. 4~O~
    Hopkins, contra.
   Per Curiam.

In Morris v. Miller, Lord Mansfield held, that in prosecutions for bigamy, as well as in ac~ dons for erlin. can. a marriage in fact must be proved; and the same rule was recognised in Birt v. Bar1ow.* The mere confession of the party is not sufficient cvi~ence. The prisoner must be discharged.

Prisoner discharged. 
      
       Doug. 17t.
     
      
      4 Burr 2056.
     