People v. Mock Yick Gar

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 334·1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 99·111 P. 1039
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 7, 1910Crim. No. 273.California1,290 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Cooper, J.

I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Hall in this- case, and desire to add that the testimony of the prosecutrix (a Japanese woman) is such that it is extremely doubtful in my mind if it would support the verdict. She had been a prostitute, living in a house of prostitution, for some time before she claimed to have married defendant. She afterward, apparently with the knowledge and consent of defendant, returned to her former mode of life. Evidently some trouble arose between the prosecutrix and defendant, either by reason of his appropriating or using money of her earnings, or otherwise. It appears from the record that she had the defendant arrested twice before the present charge—once for embezzlement, and failing in that, for bigamy, and finally, being unsuccessful in that, for the present crime of placing her in a house of prostitution. That statute provides (Pen. Code, sec. 266g): “Every man who, by force, intimidation, threats, persuasion, promises, or any other means, places or leaves ... his wife in a house of prostitution ... is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than three nor more than ten years.” It was evidently the…

Lead Opinion

Hall, J.

Defendant was charged with placing his wife in a house of prostitution. He was convicted, and has appealed to this court from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The evidence shows without conflict that defendant was married to the prosecutrix, a Japanese woman, at Redwood City on the eighteenth day of April, 1907. The ceremony was performed by a justice of the peace. On or about May 1, 1909, defendant placed the said woman, who had been a prostitute before the marriage, in a house of prostitution in the city and county of San Francisco, .and there lived with her for a considerable time.

Defendant mainly relied on the defense that he was never lawfully married to the Japanese woman, for the reason that at the time of the marriage ceremony between them he had a wife living in China to whom he had been married, and from whom he had never been divorced.

In support of this defense the uncle of defendant testified that he was present with defendant in China when a marriage ceremony was performed between defendant and a Chinese woman, that he afterward visited defendant at his home, and that defendant and the Chinese woman lived together as husband and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.