Johnson v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtTIMLIN
Citation113 N.W. 674,133 Wis. 453
PartiesJOHNSON v. STATE.
Decision Date05 November 1907

133 Wis. 453
113 N.W. 674

JOHNSON
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 5, 1907.


Error to Circuit Court, Price County; John K. Parish, Judge.

Bastardy proceeding by the state of Wisconsin against Thomas Johnson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

[113 N.W. 674]

Barry & Barry, for plaintiff in error.

Frank L. Gilbert, Atty. Gen., A. C. Titus, Asst. Atty. Gen., and W. K. Parkinson, Dist. Atty., for the State.


TIMLIN, J.

The first error assigned is that the court erred in the reception and rejection of evidence, and this is attempted to be supported by showing that the court, against repeated objections of defendant's counsel, permitted the district attorney to ask leading questions of the complaining witness, and permitted the district attorney to ask the witness Erick Erickson if he drank anything yesterday. We consider these rulings within the discretion of the court below and insufficient to support the assignment of error.

The second assignment of error is that the court erred in its remarks on the relevancy and weight of testimony during the trial. This is attempted to be supported by showing that the court during the cross-examination of the witness Erick Erickson asked: “Are you the man I declined to naturalize to-day on account of being drunk?” But the court in his instructions to the jury seems to have removed any cause of complaint on account of this question by instructing the jury to disregard the fact that citizenship papers had been denied to the witness Erickson. The remarks of the court in denying the motion of the defendant to dismiss the case for lack of proof of birth of a living child were based on the testimony and we think proper.

The third assignment of error is that the court erred in permitting the complaining witness to hold a baby in her arms on exhibition before the jury while giving her testimony. There was no attempt to offer the baby in evidence, or to exhibit it to the jury, and the supposed infraction of the legal rules consisted merely in permitting the complaining witness to hold her baby in her arms while giving her testimony. This was not error, and does not bring the case within the rule of Busse v. State, 129 Wis. 171, 108 N. W. 64, and cases cited.

The fourth assignment of error is that “the court erred in its remarks before the jury in ordering the arrest of the defendant's witness Erick Erickson, and in directing the clerk to set aside his, Erick Erickson's, naturalization papers.” It is argued that this affected the credibility of the witness with the jury. The witness Erick Erickson was called on behalf of the defendant, and, after having been warned by the court of his right to refuse to incriminate himself, testified that he had unlawful sexual relations with the complaining witness during March and April, 1905. Upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Pope v. Kincaid, (No. 5287.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 22, 1925
    ...and circumstances in proof that the defendant was the father of the child, then a jury would be justified in so finding. Johnson v. State, 133 Wis. 453, 113 N. W. 674. The law, as we understand it to obtain in this state, was properly given to the jury in one of defendant's instructions to ......
  • Perry v. State ex rel. Snyder, No. 9153.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 16, 1917
    ...N. W. 113;Benes v. People, 121 Ill. App. 103;Rose v. People, 81 Ill. App. 128;Esch v. Graue, 72 Neb. 719, 101 N. W. 978;Johnson v. State, 133 Wis. 453, 113 N. W. 674; 7 C. J. tit. “Bastards,” 994, § 125. [3] And, in any event, any possible harm which might have resulted to appellant by such......
  • State v. Southall
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1924
    ...Becker, p. 553ff. To the effect that the testimony of Winegar does not require a reversal for other cogent reasons, see Johnson v. State, 133 Wis. 453, 113 N. W. 674. Counsel relies on and quotes from Wisconsin cases to the effect that- “Paternity cannot be established against defendant bey......
  • Perry v. State ex rel. Snyder, 9,153
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 16, 1917
    ...103; Rose v. People (1898), 81 Ill.App. 128; Esche v. Graue (1904), 72 [63 Ind.App. 658] Neb. 719, 101 N.W. 978; Johnson v. State (1907), 133 Wis. 453, 113 N.W. 674; 7 C. J. 994, § 125. And, in any event, any possible harm which might have resulted to appellant by such action of the court w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Pope v. Kincaid, (No. 5287.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 22, 1925
    ...and circumstances in proof that the defendant was the father of the child, then a jury would be justified in so finding. Johnson v. State, 133 Wis. 453, 113 N. W. 674. The law, as we understand it to obtain in this state, was properly given to the jury in one of defendant's instructions to ......
  • Perry v. State ex rel. Snyder, No. 9153.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 16, 1917
    ...N. W. 113;Benes v. People, 121 Ill. App. 103;Rose v. People, 81 Ill. App. 128;Esch v. Graue, 72 Neb. 719, 101 N. W. 978;Johnson v. State, 133 Wis. 453, 113 N. W. 674; 7 C. J. tit. “Bastards,” 994, § 125. [3] And, in any event, any possible harm which might have resulted to appellant by such......
  • State v. Southall
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1924
    ...Becker, p. 553ff. To the effect that the testimony of Winegar does not require a reversal for other cogent reasons, see Johnson v. State, 133 Wis. 453, 113 N. W. 674. Counsel relies on and quotes from Wisconsin cases to the effect that- “Paternity cannot be established against defendant bey......
  • Perry v. State ex rel. Snyder, 9,153
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 16, 1917
    ...103; Rose v. People (1898), 81 Ill.App. 128; Esche v. Graue (1904), 72 [63 Ind.App. 658] Neb. 719, 101 N.W. 978; Johnson v. State (1907), 133 Wis. 453, 113 N.W. 674; 7 C. J. 994, § 125. And, in any event, any possible harm which might have resulted to appellant by such action of the court w......
  • 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