Beaver v. State

Citation256 S.W. 929
Decision Date19 December 1923
Docket Number(No. 7792.)
PartiesBEAVER v. STATE.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Appeal from Travis County Court; Geo. S. Matthews, Judge.

Howard A. Beaver was convicted of deserting, neglecting, and refusing to provide for the support and maintenance of his minor child, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Dickens & Dickens, of Austin, for appellant.

Tom Garrard, State's Atty., of Midland, and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., of Devine, for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted for willfully deserting, neglecting, and refusing to provide for the support and maintenance of his minor child, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50.

Our statute, article 640a, Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code 1916 (chapter 101, § 1, of the Acts of the Legislature of 1913), provides for the punishment of "* * * any parent who shall willfully or without justification, desert, neglect or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his or her child or children under the age of sixteen years in destitute or necessitous circumstances. * * *"

The mother of the child in question and appellant had never been married. The point is made that, the child being illegitimate, the statute in question does not apply.

At common law the father is not responsible for the maintenance of an illegitimate child. Corpus Juris, § 31, vol. 7. Under express provisions of the statute of some states, a parent who willfully refuses or neglects to provide for his or her bastard child may be punished therefor, but a general statute providing for the punishment of any person who shall neglect to provide for a child of which he or she shall be the parent applies only to parents of lawful children, and not to those of illegitimate birth. Corpus Juris, § 38, vol. 7, and authorities thereunder cited. When the word "child" or "children" is used in a statute (unless the statute clearly reflects the contrary), it means a legitimate child or children only. 2 Words and Phrases, First Series p. 1123. Construing our own civil statute upon the law of descent and distribution, the Supreme Court, in Hayworth v. Williams, 102 Tex. 308, 116 S. W. 43, 132 Am. St. Rep. 879, holds that while there is some conflict of authorities upon the meaning of the word "child" when used in a statute, deed, or will, that the decided weight of authority is in favor of the construction that the use of such word refers alone to legitimate children. In some states express statutes have been enacted providing for certain procedure to determine the parentage of an illegitimate child, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • v. 8212 6078
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1973
    ...support on the parents of illegitimate children. See Home of Holy Infancy v. Kaska, 397 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.1966); Beaver v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 256 S.W. 929 (1923). In her complaint, appellant alleges that one Richard D. is the father of her child, that Richard D. has refused to prov......
  • S. v. D.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • November 1, 1971
    ...Texas courts have held that only parents of legitimate children are amenable to prosecution under the statute. Beaver v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 256 S.W. 929 (1923). Therefore the proper party to challenge the constitutionality of Article 602 would be a parent of a legitimate child who has......
  • Home of Holy Infancy v. Kaska
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • November 3, 1965
    ...common law or statutory duty to support his illegitimate child. See Lane v. Phillips, 69 Tex. 240, 6 S.W. 610; Beaver v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.Rep. 179, 256 S.W. 929, 30 A.L.R. 1073. The Legislature has expressly provided, moreover, that the father's consent shall not be necessary for the adopti......
  • Bjorgo v. Bjorgo
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 1965
    ...refusal to provide for the support and maintenance of a child, since that provision applies only to legitimate children. Beaver v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 256 S.W. 929. The adoption of the Texas Probate Code 1 did not change the common law because Section 3(b) of that Act provides: 'Child'......
  • 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