Hogewoning v. Hogewoning
| Decision Date | 25 July 1933 |
| Citation | 117 Conn. 264,167 A. 813 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOGEWONING v. HOGEWONING. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.
Habeas corpus proceeding brought by Beatrice Hogewoning alleging the illegal confinement of two minors, brought to the superior court and tried to the court. Judgment awarding the care and custody of the minors to the respondent Bram Hogewoning subject to a right of visitation by the applicant, from which the latter appealed.
Error and new trial ordered.
Where custody of minor children is involved, evidence of wider scope than is ordinarily admitted is admissible to allow court to determine what course will best serve welfare of children, but usual rules of evidence are not abrogated.
Harry Silverstone, of Bridgeport, for appellant.
Israel J. Cohn, of Bridgeport, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding brought by the plaintiff to secure the custody of the two children of the parties formerly husband and wife but now divorced. The children are girls aged six and seven years. In such an action it is permissible and often wise to allow a wider scope in the admission of evidence of facts and circumstances than is permitted in ordinary actions, in order to give to the court the broadest possible basis upon which to determine the paramount issue, what course will best serve the welfare and happiness of the children involved. Mullins v. Becker, 113 Conn. 526, 528, 155 A. 705; Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer, 99 Conn. 154, 157, 121 A. 174. This principle does not, however, extend so far as ordinarily to abrogate the usual rules for the determination of the admissibility of evidence in actions at law. 29 Corpus Juris, 167. It is true that our statute provides that the court or judge hearing a habeas corpus case " shall proceed in a summary way to determine the facts and issues." General Statutes. § 5897. People ex rel. Woodbury v. Hendrick, 215 N.Y. 339, 344, 109 N.E. 486, 488. Under our present practice the statute does not do away with the usual rules of pleading. Scott v. Spiegel, 67 Conn. 349, 358, 35 A. 262. There may be cases in which a relaxation of the ordinary rules of evidence is justified; justice to the plaintiff may imperatively require a disposition of the case without the delay necessary to comply strictly with them and in which at the same time a departure from them will not involve substantial danger of injustice to the plaintiff, as, for example, the production of the original of a document where secondary evidence of a trustworthy nature is available. Compare Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 81, 142 A. 473. Such a departure would, however, demand the exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phidd
...The proceeding is "summary" in the sense that it should be heard promptly, without continuances; see Hogewoning v. Hogewoning, 117 Conn. 264, 265, 167 A. 813 (1933); but the use of the word also implies that the proceeding should be short, concise and conducted in a prompt and simple manner......
-
Bd.man v. Bd.man.
...the controlling elements are his welfare and best interests. Mullins v. Becker, 113 Conn. 526, 530, 155 A. 705; Hogewoning v. Hogewoning, 117 Conn. 264, 265, 167 A. 813; 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 7, page 57. A number of courts have held or intimated that a decree of divorce rendered in a state ......
-
Howarth v. Northcott
...broadest possible base upon which to determine what course will best serve the welfare and happiness of the child. Hogewoning v. Hogewoning, 117 Conn. 264, 265, 167 A. 813. The defendant argues that the court could not award support because it was not made an issue on the pleadings. Lest it......
-
Arey v. Warden, Connecticut Correctional Inst.
...case are so framed. Once the issues have been joined the evidence proffered must be relevant to these issues. Hogewoning v. Hogewoning, 117 Conn. 264, 265, 167 A. 813 (1933). While, because of the nature of the proceeding, there may be cases where a relaxation of the ordinary rules of evide......