Hale v. State

• Decision Date: 10 October 1942
• Citation: 164 S.W.2d 822,179 Tenn. 201
• Parties: HALE v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

164 S.W.2d 822

179 Tenn. 201

HALE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 10, 1942

Error to Circuit Court, Washington County; Ben Allen, Judge.

Charles P. Hale was convicted for the nonsupport of his wife, and from a judgment directing that he pay $50 per month for a period of 12 months for her maintenance, he brings error.

Affirmed.

A. D Hughes, of Johnson City, for plaintiff in error.

Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

PREWITT Justice.

The plaintiff in error, Charles P. Hale, was convicted for the nonsupport of his wife, Ruth Hale, the judgment of the lower court being that he pay $50 per month for a period of twelve months for her maintenance, and from this judgment plaintiff in error has appealed to this court.

The only question is whether or not plaintiff in error and the prosecutrix were married and whether or not they occupied the relationship of husband and wife.

The prosecutrix, Ruth Hale, testified that in November, 1927, in California, she and the plaintiff in error were married by a justice of the peace by the name of Morrison or Morris and that they lived in California until sometime in 1932, when they came to Johnson City.

It seems that some years thereafter the prosecutrix became virtually blind. About this time plaintiff in error was showing a good deal of attention to another woman, which resulted in a suit by prosecutrix against this woman, and thereafter plaintiff in error no longer supported her resulting in her being evicted from the house in which she was living for nonpayment of rent and other hardships towards her.

There is found in the record an application for a marriage license made by the parties on November 27, 1927, with the recital that such license was issued upon that date and signed by the county clerk of the county in which the application was made. There is considerable testimony that for years they lived together in Johnson City as man and wife, and on many occasions plaintiff in error introduced prosecutrix as his wife.

It seems that some time before this indictment was returned the prosecutrix filed suit for separate maintenance against the plaintiff in error in Washington County, and that plaintiff in error filed an answer admitting their marriage in California, but complained that their married life was unhappy and stormy.

The plaintiff in error claims the marriage was never consummated.

The verdict of the jury and its approval by the trial judge controverts the presumption of innocence applying in the lower court to one of guilt in this court, and the burden rests upon the plaintiff in error to show that the evidence preponderates against the verdict of the jury. Mahon v State, 127 Tenn. 535, 156 S.W. 458; Ferguson v. State, 138 Tenn. 106, 196 S.W. 140.

Plaintiff in error contends that the reason the marriage was not consummated was because the prosecutrix told him in California that her divorce decree had not been made final. The statements of the plaintiff in...