Entrekin v. Entrekin
| Decision Date | 06 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 14691,14691 |
| Citation | 398 S.W.2d 139 |
| Parties | James Peter ENTREKIN, Appellant, v. Diane Rohrer ENTREKIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Louise C. Rowen, Galveston, for appellant.
This suit was brought by appellee, Diane Rohrer Entrekin, against James Peter Entrekin for divorce, division of community property, and for custody and support of the minor child of said parties. On February 8, 1965, there was a hearing on appellant's application for modification of visitation rights previously granted appellant. At such hearing several witnesses testified, including appellant and appellee. Appellee testified with respect to certain conduct of appellant, and, among other things, testified that appellant on one occasion when he was visiting the child permitted her to play with a film cartridge box which he had taken from his pocket, and that when appellee undertook to grab the box appellant struck her, put the box in his pocket, and told her is was none of her business what the box was. She further testified that she did not feel it was safe for appellant to be with the child alone because he did not know how to care for a child and was quite impulsive and that she was afraid that he might injure the child, and further that he had on previous occasions threatened to do appellee physical harm. After such hearing, the court, on February 15, 1965, entered an order modifying appellant's visitation rights.
The record shows that the case was set for trial for February 23, 1965, and on such day counsel for appellant in open court moved that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel, which motion was granted. The cause was thereupon continued on motion of appellant to March 11, 1965 at 2 o'clock p. m. for trial on the merits. When the case was called, appellant in open court dismissed the cross-action which he had filed. The court thereupon, without hearing any evidence, granted appellee a divorce from appellant, gave appellee custody of the minor child, provided for child support and visitation rights, and ordered a division of the property of said parties.
The agreed statement of facts signed by the attorneys for the parties and by the trial judge clearly shows that no witnesses were sworn and no evidence whatever was received by the court in connection with the divorce proceeding. The court merely announced to appellant's counsel that during the hearing upon appellant's motion to modify the interlocutory order for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. State
...38 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin, 1931); Grayson v. Rodermund, 135 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin, 1939); Entrekin v. Entrekin, 398 S.W.2d 139 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston, 1966); Ex parte Turner, 478 S.W.2d 256 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.), 1972), no writ " . . . (i)t is well settled that......
-
Harris v. State
...him on another trial and enter judgment thereon. Scott v. Clark, 38 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1931); Entrekin v. Entreken, 398 S.W.2d 139 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1966). See also Rounsavall v. State, 480 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) (dissenting opinion); 1 McCormick and Ray, Texas P......
-
Stephenson v. State
...is not judicial notice.' Jackson at 157 S.W. 1196). Accord: Lerma v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 194 S.W. 167 (1917). See also: Entrekin v. Entrekin, 398 S.W.2d 139 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1966, no writ); 1 McCormick & Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, § 152, p. 172 (2d ed. 1956).4 The dissenting opi......
-
Barrientez v. State
...enter independent judgment thereon. See also Grayson v. Rodermund, 135 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin, 1939); Entrekin v. Entrekin, 398 S.W.2d 139 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston, 1966); Ex parte Turner, 478 S.W.2d 256 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston (1st District), 1972, no writ hist.); Rounsavall v. Stat......