Busse v. State

Decision Date21 June 1906
PartiesBUSSE v. STATE.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Municipal Court of Dane County; E. Ray Stevens, Judge.

Charles F. Busse was convicted of being the father of an illegitimate child, and brings error. Reversed.

Plaintiff in error, upon trial to the Dane county municipal court without a jury, was convicted of being the father of the illegitimate child of complaining witness, and adjudged to pay $100 to her, besides the costs of the proceeding, and $6 per month until the child should attain the age of seven years. He brings this writ of error to review such judgment.John A. Aylward, for plaintiff in error.

L. M. Sturdevant, Atty. Gen., and J. E. Messerschmidt, Law Examiner, for the State.

DODGE, J.

Paternity cannot be established against defendant beyond reasonable doubt, if it appear that the prosecutrix had intercourse with another man at a time consistent with the latter's responsibility for her pregnancy. Under such circumstances the law refuses to recognize the ability of the mother or any one else to know with any sufficient measure of certainty that defendant is in fact the parent. Baker v. State, 47 Wis. 111, 2 N. W. 110. The period for conception in this case extended, according to expert testimony, from about July 27 to about September 15, 1904; mid-August being the most probable time, since the birth, entirely normal and mature, occurred May 23, 1905.

Refraining from details of evidence as to general persistency through July and into September of practically conceded libidinous relations theretofore existing between prosecutrix and one Walter Busse, while she was housekeeper or domestic servant in defendant's farmhouse, we shall rest our decision upon one specific event which we think is shown conclusively to have occurred within the period mentioned. The particular occasion was on a Sunday, marked by defendant's absence from home. Walter spent the day in company with prosecutrix in the house, and, without rehearing the testimony, we can understand her only as admitting intercourse on that occasion--at most, offering denial merely as to its frequency. There seems to be no doubt or dispute as to the identity of this particular occasion, but merely as to its date. Prosecutrix declares that it was in July, some time after the Fourth, because she knew they had no sexual relations after July, an often reiterated statement. Some other witnesses can only say it was in July or August. One Cossibone, however, a hired man, has definite data; for he did not commence work on the farm until August 11th, and this Sunday episode occurred after that date. There is nothing to cast...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Johnson v. Ætna Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • May 6, 1914
    ...Neale v. State, 138 Wis. 484, 486, 120 N. W. 345;Wanta v. M. E. R. & L. Co., 148 Wis. 295, 298, 134 N. W. 133. In Busse v. State, 129 Wis. 171, 173, 108 N. W. 64, 65, it is said: “It has often been held that the testimony of even disinterested and unimpeached witnesses on the subjects of me......
  • State v. Southall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • March 12, 1924
    ...... "paternity cannot be established against defendant. beyond a reasonable doubt if it appears that the. prosecutrix had intercourse with another man at a time. consistent with the latter's responsibility for her. pregnancy." (Italics are ours.) Busse v. State,. 129 Wis. 171, 108 N.W. 64; Baker v. State, 47 Wis. 111, 2 N.W. 110, 2 Am. Crim. Rep. 606. Counsel likewise cite. cases from Michigan and Indiana. These authorities are not. controlling in this state. The object of a bastardy. proceeding is not to punish the father, but to insure. ......
  • Smith v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • November 12, 1909
    ...Affirmed. Among other references upon the part of the appellant were the following: Ott v. Boring (Wis.) 121 N. W. 126;Busse v. State, 129 Wis. 171;108 N. W. 64;Heirs of House, 132 Wis. 212, 112 N. W. 27; section 2274, St. 1898; Schiefelbein v. Fidelity, etc., Co. (Wis.) 120 N. W. 398;Suffe......
  • State ex rel. Isham v. Mullally
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • December 29, 1961
    ...the whole evidence will not reasonably support the finding. See Krahn v. Goodrich (1917), 164 Wis. 600, 160 N.W. 1072; Busse v. State (1906), 129 Wis. 171, 108 N.W. 64. When credible evidence exists supporting contrary propositions, it is only reasonable for the court to accept the proposit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT