Hummel v. State

• Decision Date: 10 March 1920
• Docket Number: 10,645
• Citation: 126 N.E. 444,73 Ind.App. 12
• Parties: HUMMEL v. STATE OF INDIANA
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

126 N.E. 444

73 Ind.App. 12

HUMMEL v. STATE OF INDIANA

No. 10,645

Court of Appeals of Indiana

March 10, 1920

From Marion Juvenile Court (15,090); Frank J. Lahr, Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Ivan F. Hummel. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Alvah J. Rucker, for appellant.

Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, and A. B. Cronk, for the state.

OPINION

NICHOLS, C. J.

By this appeal appellant seeks to reverse the judgment of the Marion Juvenile Court, based upon the following facts certified by the trial court, in the form of a special finding, as required by § 1635 Burns 1914, Acts 1907 p 221: Ivan F. Hummel and Dot Hummel on or about September 28 1902, started to live together as husband and wife in a hotel in Chicago, Illinois, and lived together in the manner of husband and wife until June 10, 1919; that at no time was a marriage ceremony performed between them by any organization or person entitled or sanctioned by law to perform the same; that since September, 1902, the said Dot Hummel, while living with the defendant in the manner aforesaid, gave birth to three children, Waldo, age sixteen, Ivan, age ten, and Andrew, age fourteen months; that the defendant acknowledges himself to be the father of all such children except the youngest; that Ivan F. Hummel supported the said Dot Hummel and all of said children until about April 1, 1919; that between April 1, 1919, and June 10, 1919, the children were at different times in need of food and clothing, which the defendant failed and neglected to give; that since June 10, 1919, and up to the date of trial, the defendant failed and neglected to provide anything whatever for said children; that, at all times during the living together of said parties, the defendant and Dot Hummel held themselves out and represented themselves to the public to be husband and wife; that the defendant has been industrious and has had no trouble except that arising from the facts in this case; that in the month of June, 1919, the defendant married one Grace F. Huls, who had worked in his office as his stenographer; that, before said marriage with Grace F. Huls, the defendant and Dot Hummel agreed that after such marriage they and each of them and the said children should live in the same house, said Dot Hummel to be the housekeeper for all of said parties; that several days after such marriage Dot Hummel became dissatisfied with such arrangement and removed herself and three children to Sandwich, Illinois, since which time defendant contributed nothing towards their support or maintenance; that at Sandwich, Illinois, the said Dot Hummel and her three children lived with her father, George L. Havenhill, who looked after their needs during the time aforesaid; that defendant contributed nothing.

It is not necessary to set out the affidavit containing the charge, as the section above referred to expressly provides that the special findings, and not the informal complaint, shall be considered as the basis of the judgment rendered.

By the judgment based on the foregoing facts, appellant was fined in the sum of $ 500, sentenced to imprisonment in the Marion county jail for 180 days, with an order that he be compelled to work on the public work of Marion county, and that the commissioners pay, for the support of said children, one dollar for each day's work of the appellant.

Appellant's counsel, in an able brief, without defendant or condoning the immoralities of his client or of his client's wife, in language which we commend for the respect which it shows for the trial judge, from whom he differs in his interpretation of the law, most earnestly contends that the judgment must be reversed, for the reason that the court has no jurisdiction. It is argued that, since the mother had taken the children for the care of whom appellant is charged with having failed to provide, to Illinois, such failure, if any, was in that state where they were for the time domiciled, and that he is therefore not amenable to the Indiana law. From April 1 1919, to June 10, 1919, as appears in the facts certified, the children were at different times in need of food and clothing, which appellant failed and neglected to furnish. They were then in Indiana. From June 10 to the date of the trial appellant failed and neglected to provide anything whatever for such children. During this last period of time they were with their mother at the home of her parents in Illinois. The statute under which appellant is charged made it an offense wilfully to neglect to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter and medical attention for his children. Acts 1915 p. 139, § 2635c et seq. Burns...