Edgecombe County NcArchives Court.....Raphael Behrman, State V. 1894 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Connie Ardrey n/a December 8, 2009, 6:55 pm Source: North Carolina Reports February Term Written: 1894 State v. Raphael Behrman Indictment for Fornication and Adultery-Marriage Evidence-Proof of Foreign Laws-Certificate of Foreign Marriage-Res Gestoe 1. Any person who claims to know the provisions of the common or unwritten laws of a foreign country may, under section 1338 of The Code, testify to and explain them before courts and juries (Shepherd, C.J. dissenting). 2. A paper-writing purporting to be a contract of marriage, and to be signed by the contracting parties at the time of the alleged marriage, is admissible, in the trial of an indictment for fornication and adultery, not only in corroboration of a witness who testified to the facts, but also as substantive evidence to prove the marriage. 3. Where, in the trial of an indictment for fornication and adultery, a photograph of defendant, was introduced, on the back of which, signed with his name, were words purporting to be a marriage to his wife and indicating that the one to whom the message was addressed was married, and the alleged wife (prosecuting witness) testified that the writing was the defendant's and that the photograph had been sent to her: Held, that such writing was admissible as an acknowledgment of marriage. 4. Where, in the trial of an indictment for fornication and adultery, the material issue was whether the prosecuting witness and defendant were married in a foreign country, a certificate by the officiating rabbi, attesting the marriage and certified by the signature and seal of the official minister of such foreign country, although inadmissible as a record or an independent declaration of the rabbi, it was competent as a part of the res gestoe to support the testimony of the prosecuting witness as to the facts of the marriage. Indictment for fornication and adultery, tried before Bynum, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1893, of Edgecombe. Sarah Behrman, a witness for the State, testified: "I came from Riga, Russia; know the defendant Raphael Behrman, was married to him in Riga on 25 December, 1884, by a rabbi." The witness produced the following paper (translation of marriage certificate): "The rabbi of the city of Riga herewith attests to the marriage of Raphael Behrman, from Oknian, with Sarah Dinah, daughter of Noah Strauch, from Tuckkum, on 25 December, 1884, held in the city of Riga. This is certified by the signature and seal of the official minister. "M. Shapira, (L.S.)" And she testified it was given her by the Court, and was signed by the rabbi who married her to the defendant, and that he put his stamp upon it, and she carried it back to the Court and it was stamped by the Court. The following paper was also produced (translation of the marriage contract): "On the third day of the tenth month, according to the Hebrew calendar, in the year 5640, at that time the son, Raphael of the father by the name of Aaron, Raphael son of Aaron, said to Sarah Dinah, the daughter of Noah, that she will be his wife according to the laws of Moses. He says he will support her and take care of her from that day until they are separated by death. It is mutually agreed by them to be man and wife, and he will clothe her and take care of her as becomes necessary from husband and wife. He further agreed that she shall share with him all his wealth, and, if any one should come and try to take any of it from him, she shall have the preference of it. This agreement holds from this day as long as they shall live. Raphael Behrman, "Dinah Behrman" And the witness stated this was also signed by the rabbi and given to her at the time of the marriage. The defendant objected to this evidence. The objection was overruled, and defendant excepted. At this stage of the trial one Zander and one Album were sworn by the Court as interpreters, and testified that the "marriage certificate" was written in German, and the "marriage contract" in the Chaldean language, and the two were translated into English, as set out above. The State then introduced both of these papers. There was no objection to the translation, but the introduction of the documents was objected to, and the Court overruled the objection, stating to counsel (and so instructing the jury) that they were not admitted as a record of the marriage, but only to corroborate the witness as to her marriage with defendant. The defendant excepted. A picture was then shown to witness, and the translation of the endorsement thereon, which was in German, was as follows: "To remembrance from your dear husband, Raphael Behrman, who resides in the city of Norfolk, Virginia, at No. 48 Bank street. Raphael Behrman" "Give the enclosed picture to our dear child, so that he will know his unbeknown father. Raphael Behrman" And she testified, under objection of defendant, that: "This is the picture of my husband. He sent it to me from Norfolk, Va., to London," and the writing on the back was her husband's. The picture was then introduced and admitted as evidence only to corroborate the witness as to the marriage. Defendant excepted. She stated she came from London to Norfolk because her husband sent her a "paid ticket." Album, a witness for the State, stated (under objection) that he was familiar with the law of marriage among the Jews in Russia, and that in Riga it is left with the rabbi who gives the certificate, which is then carried to court and the Russian stamp is put upon it. He also testified that he asked defendant, while in jail, if he had married Sarah Strauch, and he said he had, and then he asked if he had married the other woman, and he said, "Yes, in Washington, D.C." Sarah Behrman was recalled, and stated that she was familiar with the law of marriage in Russia, and that she was married according to that law. The defendant testified, in his own behalf, that he was reared by wealthy parents in Russia, and was in the habit of going to Riga when he was sixteen or seventeen years old, and met the witness, who claimed to be his wife, in a house of ill-fame, from which he bought her for $150, and that he maintained illicit relations with her for some time and then left her and went to Hamburg, because he had reason to believe she had robbed him. She followed him there, and he had her sent back to Russia, and he then went to London, thence to Canada, and to Norfolk, and had married his wife (Fannie Kemp) in Washington City. He had never married the other woman. Knows the marriage law of Russia, and both parties have to sign the license before marriage, and he never signed any license. The picture introduced was his photograph, taken in Norfolk, but the writing on the back was not his, and he does not know how the woman got it. She was offered $300 to stop this case. She had arrested once before, in Atlanta, Ga., and then did not appear, and he was discharged. He sent her no money to bring her from London; had never seen either of the documents set out above. Left Norfolk after his marriage with Fannie Kemp and moved to Atlanta, then to Philadelphia, Suffolk, Va., and then to Rocky Mount and Whitaker's, NC. The State entered a nol. pros. as to Fannie Kemp and introduced her as a witness. She testified that she and defendant were married in Washington City about six years ago and she had been living with him as wife ever since. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, and from the judgment thereon defendant appealed, assigning error in the admission of the testimony objected to. The Attorney-General for the State No counsel contra [NC Supreme Court] Avery J. Judgment affirmed [See court case for Judge Avery's findings] File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/edgecombe/court/raphaelb1241wl.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/ File size: 8.2 Kb