Bigamy was not an offence at common law,, but has been made criminal by statute. Our statute, Battle’s Revisal, ch. 32, § 15, declares “ if any married person, doth take to bim or herself another husband or wife, while his or her former husband or wife is still alive, the person so offending shall suffer as prescribed in section twenty-nine.”
By this statute it is made a misdemeanor, and it is the second marriage while the first wife is living that constitutes the crime. When the second marriage takes place in another state, as is alleged in this indictment, the courts of this state cannot take jurisdiction of the offence. It is no^violation of the criminal law of this state. “ The common law considers crimes as altogether local and cognizable and punishable exclusively in the country where they aré committed. No other nation therefore has any right to punish them.” Story’s Conflict of Laws, 516. In the case of Folloit v. Ogelin, 1 H. Black., 138, Lord Loughbrough .held, “penal laws of foreign countries are strictly local and affect nothing more than they can reach and can be seized by virtue of their authority.” Mr. Justice Roller,in thesame case on a writ of error, said : “ It is a general principle that penal laws of one country cannot be taken notice of in another,”and in a more recent case Lord Brougham held “the lex loti must needs govern all criminal jurisdiction from the nature of the thing and the purpose of the jurisdiction.” Warrender v. Warrender, 9 Bligh, 119, 120. And in this country in the case of the Antelope, 10 Wheaton’s Rep., 66, 123, Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the court, said, “ The courts of no state execute the penal laws of another.” See Story’s Conflict of Laws, § § 620 and 621. We might cite other authorities but it is unnecessary upon so plain a proposition.
*617There is no error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Henderson county, to the end that the defendant may be discharged.
Per Curiam. No error.