Baker v. Lease, 5
Decision Date | 13 October 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 5,5 |
Citation | 203 A.2d 700,236 Md. 246 |
Parties | Shirley Ann BAKER v. Edward M. LEASE. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Donald W. Mason, Deputy State's Atty. (James S. Getty, State's Atty. for Allegany County, Cumberland, on the brief), for appellant.
No brief or appearance for appellee.
Before HENDERSON, C. J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
This appeal is from a decree, in a paternity proceeding filed October 10, 1963, under Chapter 722 of the Acts of 1963, awarding custody of the child of a married woman born March 21, 1963, to its mother, the petitioner, but finding that the appellee, against whom the petition was filed, was not the father of the child. This case was tried before the court without a jury, and the Chancellor handed down an opinion covering this case and also the case of Corley v. Moore, Md., 203 A.2d 697, just decided (1963), where he reached an opposite result.
The basis of the Chancellor's finding in the instant case, as stated in his opinion, was that 'the new statute does not remove the requirement laid down in Hall [v. State, 176 Md. 488, 5 A.2d 916] that the proof as to non-access must be clear, convincing and satisfactory.' For the reasons stated in Corley v. Moore, supra, we disagree. The test is the preponderance of the evidence, as in other civil cases. The court further stated that in the instant case Again we disagree.
The new statute repealed the old law under which bastardy was made a criminal offense so that it was incorrect to refer to the petitioner as the 'prosecutrix'. The new proceeding is in equity, predicated upon the traditional concern of chancery with the custody, guardianship and support of minor children. Moreover, the Chancellor's statement does not accurately summarize the evidence in the record.
The father and mother of the petitioner both testified that the appellant and her husband separated in January, 1962. They had been married on February 11, 1961, when she was sixteen years of age. The father testified that he brought his daughter home to Cresaptown from Finzel, Garrett County, because her mother-in-law had 'set her out on the road', after a quarrel occasioned by the husband coming home drunk. They testified that the daughter lived with them continuously until September, 1962, when she went to live with a girl friend. She had a child by her husband that was about one year old at the time of the separation. The father, Mr. Sheetz, testified that the husband contributed nothing to the wife's support. He saw the husband once when he came to the house to see his baby, but did not stay long. He testified he was present with his daughter the whole time the husband was there. On another occasion the husband came to the house at 2 A.M., but the father refused to admit him. He saw him once or twice on the street in Cumberland, where Mr. Sheetz was employed.
The mother, Mrs. Sheetz, testified that the daughter lived with them from January to September, 1962. She testified that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garnett v. State
...mistake about the age of the girl with whom he has intercourse"). 10 Fornication is not a crime in Maryland. See Baker v. Lease, 236 Md. 246, 248, 203 A.2d 700, 701 (1964). Accordingly, in Maryland, there is no underlying offense from which to transfer intent. [a] man who engages in consens......
-
Staley v. Staley
...by a preponderance of the evidence that the man who is not her husband is the father of her child. See Baker v. Lease, 236 Md. 246, 247-48, 203 A.2d 700, 700-01 (1964); Corley v. Moore, 236 Md. 241, 245, 203 A.2d 697, 699-700 The mother contends that this legislative modification of the 'Lo......
-
Anderson v. Sheffield
...was "predicated upon the traditional concern of chancery with custody, guardianship and support of minor children." Baker v. Lease, 236 Md. 246, 248, 203 A.2d 700 (1964). Incorporated into this new, civil cause of action is a provision which specifically limits the time during which an acti......
-
Shelley v. Smith
...pleadings, by a fair preponderance of affirmative evidence.' (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 244-246, 203 A.2d at 699. Cf. Baker v. Lease, 236 Md. 246, 203 A.2d 700 (1964). Appellants contend that the chancellors' (Jenifer and Haile, JJ.) disregard of the Lord Mansfield rule, besides being wron......