Hanawalt v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtTAYLOR
Citation64 Wis. 84,24 N.W. 489
PartiesHANAWALT v. STATE.
Decision Date22 September 1885

64 Wis. 84
24 N.W. 489

HANAWALT
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed September 22, 1885.


Error to circuit court, Waupaca county.

[24 N.W. 489]

L. L. Soule and G. W. Cate, for plaintiff in error.

L. F. Frisby, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.


TAYLOR, J.

This was an action to charge the plaintiff in error with the support and maintenance of a bastard child. On the trial in the circuit court the state was permitted, against the objection of the plaintiff in error, to bring into court, and exhibit to the jurors for their inspection, as evidence in the case, the child of which he was charged with being the father; such child then being less than one year old. This is assigned as error in this court. The plaintiff also assigns as error that the counsel for the state was permitted to comment to the jury and draw their attention to the alleged similarity of the ears of the child to the ears of the plaintiff in error, as well as to the ears of the plaintiff's father, who was also in court, and in the presence of the jury, the child, at the time, being absent. Upon the question of the propriety of exhibiting the child to the jury as evidence in cases involving its paternity, the decisions of the courts are not in harmony. In North Carolina the supreme court of that state hold that such exhibitions may properly be made. See State v. Woodruff, 67 N. C. 89;State v. Britt, 78 N. C. 439;Warlick v. White, 76 N. C. 175; and State v. Bowles, 7 Jones, (N. C.) 579. The same

[24 N.W. 490]

was held by the supreme court of Iowa in State v. Smith, 54 Iowa, 104;S. C. 6 N. W. Rep. 153. In this last case the child was over two years old; but, in the case of State v. Danforth, 48 Iowa, 43, the same court held it was improper to exhibit to the jury a child only three months old. In Eddy v. Gray, 4 Allen, 435;Jones v. Jones, 45 Md. 144;Keniston v. Rowe, 16 Me. 38, the court hold that testimony of witnesses that the child looks like or resembles in appearance the person charged to be the father is not admissible, and in Reitz v. State, 33 Ind. 187, and Risk v. State, 19 Ind. 152, it was held error to allow the prosecution to give the child in evidence, so that the jury might compare it with the defendant who was present in court.

In the Douglas Case, Lord MANSFIELD is reported as saying: “I have always considered likeness as an argument of a child's being the son of a parent; and the rather as the distinction between individuals in the human species is more discernible than in other animals. A man may survey ten thousand people before he sees two faces perfectly alike, and in an army of a hundred thousand men every one may be known from another. If there should be a likeness of feature, there may be a discriminancy of voice, a difference in the gestures, the smile, and various other things, whereas a family likeness runs generally through all these, for in everything there is a resemblance; as of features, size, attitude, and action.” This language attributed to Lord MANSFIELD is taken from Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, p. 123. This author, on the next page, says that in a Scotch case, when the question was who was the father of a certain woman, an allegation that she had a strong resemblance in the features of the face to one of the tenants of the alleged father was held not to be relevant as being too much a matter of fancy and of opinion to form a material...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Redman v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 1 Noviembre 1911
    ...was for incest, the Hilton Case was for adultery, and the Gray Case was a prosecution for rape. To the same effect are Hanawalt v. State, 64 Wis. 84, 24 N. W. 489, 54 Am. Rep. 588; State v. Danforth, 48 Iowa, 43, 30 Am. Rep. 387. These cases involved the question as to the paternity of a yo......
  • Flores v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 21 Noviembre 1916
    ...Rep. 192; State v. Danforth, 48 Iowa, 43, 30 Am. Rep. 387; State v. Harvey, supra; Robnett v. People, 16 Ill.App. 299; Hanawalt v. State, 64 Wis. 84, 24 N.W. 489, 54 Am. Rep. 588; State v. Neel, 23 Utah, 541, 65 P. 494; Clark v. Bradstreet, 80 Me. 454, 15 A. 56, 6 Am. St. Rep. 221; Reitz v.......
  • Glascock v. Anderson, No. 9357
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 26 Mayo 1972
    ...A.L.R. 94 (1924)); Beattie v. Traynor, 114 Vt. 495, 49 A.2d 200 (1946); State v. Forbes, 108 Vt. 361, 187 A. 422 (1936); Hanawalt v. State, 64 Wis. 84, 24 N.W. 489 (1885); State v. Cabrera, 13 Ariz.App. 527, 4278 P.2d 142 (1970); Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal.App.2d 652, 169 P.2d 442 (1946); Mor......
  • Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Company v. Brady, 4437
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 16 Enero 1894
    ...34; Hall v. Wolf, 61 Iowa 559; Whitsett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 67 Iowa 130; Baker v. Madison, 62 Wis. 137; Hanawalt v. State, 64 Wis. 84; Sasse v. State, 68 Wis. 530; Commonwealth v. Scott, 123 Mass. 239; Hatch v. State, 8 Tex. App., 416; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Bragonier, 13......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Redman v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 1 Noviembre 1911
    ...was for incest, the Hilton Case was for adultery, and the Gray Case was a prosecution for rape. To the same effect are Hanawalt v. State, 64 Wis. 84, 24 N. W. 489, 54 Am. Rep. 588; State v. Danforth, 48 Iowa, 43, 30 Am. Rep. 387. These cases involved the question as to the paternity of a yo......
  • Flores v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 21 Noviembre 1916
    ...Rep. 192; State v. Danforth, 48 Iowa, 43, 30 Am. Rep. 387; State v. Harvey, supra; Robnett v. People, 16 Ill.App. 299; Hanawalt v. State, 64 Wis. 84, 24 N.W. 489, 54 Am. Rep. 588; State v. Neel, 23 Utah, 541, 65 P. 494; Clark v. Bradstreet, 80 Me. 454, 15 A. 56, 6 Am. St. Rep. 221; Reitz v.......
  • Glascock v. Anderson, No. 9357
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 26 Mayo 1972
    ...A.L.R. 94 (1924)); Beattie v. Traynor, 114 Vt. 495, 49 A.2d 200 (1946); State v. Forbes, 108 Vt. 361, 187 A. 422 (1936); Hanawalt v. State, 64 Wis. 84, 24 N.W. 489 (1885); State v. Cabrera, 13 Ariz.App. 527, 4278 P.2d 142 (1970); Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal.App.2d 652, 169 P.2d 442 (1946); Mor......
  • Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Company v. Brady, 4437
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 16 Enero 1894
    ...Ind. 34; Hall v. Wolf, 61 Iowa 559; Whitsett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 67 Iowa 130; Baker v. Madison, 62 Wis. 137; Hanawalt v. State, 64 Wis. 84; Sasse v. State, 68 Wis. 530; Commonwealth v. Scott, 123 Mass. 239; Hatch v. State, 8 Tex. App., 416; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Bragonier, 13 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