Hogeboom v. Hurlburt
| Decision Date | 09 June 1955 |
| Parties | Vivian Hogeboom, Complainant,<BR>v.<BR>Robert Hurlburt, Defendant. |
| Court | New York District Court |
John Sullivan for complainant.
Sidney Singer for defendant.
The complainant's undisputed and uncorroborated testimony is to the effect that she became acquainted with the defendant in August of 1953, and began keeping company with him sometime after January 13, 1954; that within a reasonable time after the latter date she began having sexual intercourse with him and continued to do so frequently thereafter; that they occupied the same room in the home of one Rex Hurlburt at Quinneyville for a certain period of time and later had an apartment on Highland Avenue in the city of Binghamton which was occupied by herself and the defendant, Robert Hurlburt, for several weeks; that she later moved to an apartment in Johnson City in which she resided with a sister of the said defendant and where she continued to have relations with the defendant; that the acts of intercourse were carried on from two to more times a week all during this period and that in the month of July, 1954, she discovered that she was with child. Complainant testified further that in May, she had intercourse with the defendant on the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22d, 23d and 25th days, and claims that the conception took place during this period, as her last menstrual period began about May 7th, and lasted for about three days. Complainant further testified that she had intercourse with no other man during the month of May, 1954, or the period that she was going with the said Robert Hurlburt.
The sole defense of the defendant was evidence of his sterility as testified to by his family physician, Dr. A. M. Torrence, and Dr. Herbert Bandell, who made an examination of the defendant in the month of May, 1955. The defendant, himself, did not take the stand to make any denial of the complainant's testimony. Dr. Torrence testified that he had known the defendant for about twenty years and had been his family physician, and that he had examined him on different occasions and that he had examined him the last time within about two weeks of the date of trial. Dr. Torrence stated that the defendant's right testicle was undescended; that the left was small; and that this condition had existed according to the defendant's medical history back to his schooldays and his adolescence, during which time Dr. Torrence had the record of the conditions.
Dr. Bandell testified that the examination of the defendant in May, 1955, disclosed that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pyeatte v. Pyeatte
...68 Cal.App.2d 20, 155 P.2d 895 (1945); Commr. of Welfare v. Wendtland, 25 A.D.2d 640, 268 N.Y.S.2d 547 (1966); Hogeboom v. Hurlburt, 207 Misc. 997, 141 N.Y.S.2d 691 (1955); Timm v. State, 262 Wis. 162, 54 N.W.2d 46 (1952); compare People v. Guiseppe, 97 N.Y.S.2d 486 (Ch.Ct. Into the other b......
-
Saratoga County Com'r of Public Welfare v. Roberson
...little bearing insofar as the present case is concerned. Two other citations in the memorandum of the respondent: Hogeboom v. Hurlburt, 207 Misc. 997, 141 N.Y.S.2d 691, on the question of sterility and People ex rel. Lawton v. Snell, 216 N.Y. 527, 111 N.E. 50, Ann.Cas. 1917D, 222, have no p......
-
Commissioner of Welfare of City of New York v. Wendtland
...should be thoroughly explored as a matter of simple justice because of the serious consequences to both parties (cf. Hogeboom v. Hurlburt, 207 Misc. 997, 141 N.Y.S.2d 691; Dept. of Public Welfare v. Hamilton, 282 App.Div. 1025, 126 N.Y.S.2d 240). Nor should respondent be unduly penalized be......