Dir. Of Pub. Aid v. Parzych., 8516.

Decision Date12 April 1943
Docket NumberNo. 8516.,8516.
Citation31 A.2d 476
PartiesKENYON, Director of Public Aid, v. PARZYCH.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Washington County; Alberic A. Archambault, Judge.

Proceeding by Amos L. Kenyon, Director of Public Aid of the town of Hopkinton to compel Michael Parzych to support a child born out of wedlock of which respondent is alleged to be the father. The complaint was heard before a justice of the superior court, sitting without a jury, who found that respondent was the father and ordered him to pay $5 a week for the child's support until it reached statutory age and $250 for lying-in expenses, clothing, care and keep of child to day of trial, and respondent brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled and case remitted to Superior Court for entry of judgment on the decision.

Thomas J. Capalbo, of Westerly, for complainant.

John J. Dunn, of Westerly, for respondent.

CONDON, Justice.

This is a complaint brought by the director of public aid of the town of Hopkinton in accordance with the provisions of General Laws 1938, chapter 424, to compel the respondent to support a child, born out of wedlock, of which he is alleged to be the father. The complaint was heard before a justice of the superior court, sitting without a jury, who found that the respondent was the father and ordered him to pay $5 a week for the child's support until it reached statutory age, and $250 for lying-in expenses, clothing, care and keep of the child from the date of its birth to the day of trial, this amount to be paid in weekly payments of $2 until the full sum of $250 was paid.

The respondent has prosecuted a bill of exceptions to this court containing nine separate exceptions. The first three are as follows: “1. That the decision of said Justice in adjudging the said defendant to be guilty as charged is against the law; 2. That said decision is against the evidence; 3. That said decision of said Justice is against the law and the evidence and the weight thereof.” Under these alleged exceptions the respondent has argued in his brief that the decision is clearly wrong.

The complainant contends that the respondent has no such exceptions. We do not agree with this contention. While the respondent did not actually take three such exceptions, he did claim an exception to the trial justice's decision within seven days after it was rendered. Under this exception he may argue any ground on which he claims the decision was erroneous. The procedural requirements of the statute, G.L.1938, chap. 542, § 5, providing for bills of exceptions, as that statute has been construed by this court in Dunn Worsted Mills v. Allendale Worsted Mills, 33 R.I. 115, 80 A. 591, and Blake v. Atlantic National Bank, 33 R.I. 109, 80 A. 181, are complied with by taking an exception in this manner to the decision of a trial justice in a jury-waived case. However, no exceptions such as 1, 2 and 3 in respondent's bill are necessary. They are, indeed, the grounds of his exception to the decision rather than exceptions and they should not be thus set out in a bill of exceptions.

Treating these so-called exceptions then more properly as the grounds of respondent's first exception rather than as exceptions, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the trial justice's decision. The complaint was properly brought by the director of public aid of Hopkinton, as it sufficiently appears that such town was the residence of the child's mother. It also sufficiently appears from the evidence, by inference at least, if not by direct testimony, that the “intercourse”, which was constantly referred to in the testimony, was sexual intercourse between the respondent and the complaining witness, the mother of the child. Moreover, not only the opportunity for such intercourse was reasonably shown by the testimony, but also the inclination of the respondent to indulge therein. It is undenied that he was engaged to be married to the complaining witness and had given her a ring; that he was in her company day and night several times weekly; that on at least one occasion he stayed overnight in her house with her alone; that he was always “bothering” her and that he had admitted to her mother that he was the father of the child. There was no contradiction of any of this testimony. And there was no evidence of her “keeping company” with any other man. The respondent was in court but did not testify in his own behalf. His failure to testify leaves this accusation and the testimony of his admission of paternity undisputed. His first exception is therefore overruled.

Exceptions four to six, inclusive, are to rulings of the trial justice refusing to exclude certain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Cavanagh v. Cavanagh
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 15, 1977
  • Surber v. Pearce
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • November 27, 1963
    ...department of public welfare. It was under the statute as it existed prior to 1949 that this court in 1943 decided Kenyon v. Parzych, 69 R.I. 139, 143, 31 A.2d 476, 479. There we held that the purpose of bastardy proceedings 'is not punishment but to save the town from the expense incident ......
  • Lancia v. Grossman's of R. I., Inc.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1965
    ...the transaction was in fact usurious. We do not agree that such exception raises only the narrow issue claimed by them. Kenyon v. Parzych, 69 R.I. 139, 31 A.2d 476, which they cite is not in Finally, they state that if we decide that the question whether the transaction is in fact usurious ......
  • White v. Alexion, 9246
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1952
    ...for a review by this court of the trial justice's decision on all grounds presented in the motion and argued to him. See Kenyon v. Parzych, 69 R.I. 139, 31 A.2d 476, and Dubee v. Feinstein, 61 R.I. 214, 200 A. We shall treat each of those points in the above order after first summarizing br......
  • 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