Jones v. State

• Decision Date: 16 January 1918
• Docket Number: No. 91.,91.
• Citation: 132 Md. 142,103 A. 459
• Parties: JONES v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

103 A. 459

132 Md. 142

JONES

v. STATE.

No. 91.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 16, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harford County; Wm. H. Harlan, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Royston W. Jones was convicted of bastardy, and, from an order for bond for support of the child, appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C. J., and, BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

S. A. Williams, of Bel Air (Thomas H. Robinson, of Bel Air, on the brief), for appellant. Philip B. Perlman, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Albert C. Ritchie, Atty. Gen., and Walter R. McComas, State's Atty., and Harry S. Carver, both of Bel Air, on the brief), for the State.

BURKE, J. Royston W. Jones, the appellant, was indicted in the circuit court for Harford county for bastardy. The indictment which was found on the 16th day of May, 1917, charged that the traverser did, on the 15th day of July, 1916, at the county aforesaid, unlawfully beget on the body of Mary M. Cunningham a female illegitimate child, of which child the said Mary was afterwards delivered, to wit, on the 10th day of April, 1917; that said child was born alive, and was still living with its mother in the county aforesaid at the time the indictment was found. To this indictment the traverser pleaded not guilty. Issue was joined upon the plea, and the case was tried before a jury, which, on the 25th day of May, 1917, by their verdict, found the traverser guilty. The court, on June 18, 1917, ordered that: "The traverser give bond to the state of Maryland in the penalty of $500, conditioned to pay $10 per month, accounting from this date, for the maintenance of the child to the mother or person having said child in custody, until said child reaches the age of 12 years or during the life of same if she should die before reaching 12 years of age; and to pay the further sum of $40 to the mother on account of expense incurred, and further to pay the reasonable funeral expenses of said child should she die under the age of 12 years; and in default of such bond, it is further ordered that he be and is hereby committed to the house of correction for two years, or until said bond be given."'

This order was passed under the act of 1912 (chapter 163; article 12, § 5, third volume of the Code). The appeal before us was taken by the traverser from this judgment or order.

It is the settled law of this state that in cases of this kind "the offense which the law punishes is fornication, which term, as here used, means unlawful sexual intercourse, which results in begetting a child, and the consummation of which is established by the birth of the child." Sheay v. State, 74 Md. 52, 21 Atl. 607. There was great conflict in the evidence, and during the course of the trial 29 bills of exceptions were reseryed by the traverser to rulings of the court upon questions of evidence. Where a number of the exceptions may be considered together I bey will be arranged in appropriate groups, and will not be separately discussed. We do not find it necessary in order to dispose of the exceptions to discuss at length the evidence, but will deal with it according to its general purport and effect.

Margaret M. Cunningham, a single woman, in 1914 was living at Highland Station, in Harford county, and was employed by Gailey Bros. & Orr, who conducted a store and post office at that place. The station was on the line of the Maryland & Pennsylvania Railroad, and the traverser, who was engaged in fa ruling, shipped milk from that point. She became acquainted with him in the spring or early summer of 1914. She testified that during the fall and winter of 1914 and 1915 the appellant visited her frequently, and that in the spring of 1915 they became engaged to be married, and that two or three months after this engagement he had sexual intercourse with her, and that this improper relation continued from the summer of 1015 until the last of July or the first of August of that year, when they were discontinued and not resumed, because she had learned from Dr. Famous, whom she had consulted, that she was pregnant. She testified at the first opportunity she had after she had consulted Dr. Famous she informed the appellant of her condition, and he advised her to wait a little while, and if she was pregnant he would marry her. She further testified that the traverser came to see her at the home of Mrs. Deavers, where she boarded, on the night of November 11, 1916, and she gave the following evidence as to a portion of that interview: "He asked me how much money it would take to support the child; we counted it up, and he said the total amount for 12 years at $2.50 a week was too much. I told him I would have to do with one-half to provide for the child, which was $780 for six years. He said lie would do that at $2.50 a week; we counted it up; he was there and helped to count it up. After we counted up what the amount would be at $2.50 a week for 12 years, he said that was too much. I told him if he would help me in the support of the child, and if he would pay $780, which would provide for it for six years, if that would be satisfactory, and he said it would, and he wrote down that he would pay that much."

The first and second exceptions were taken to the action of the court in admitting in evidence this paper, made in the presence of the traverser and which he had helped to prepare, as testified to by the prosecutrix, and the third exception was to the overruling of a motion to strike out a certain answer referring to calculations which the witness had made at the time the paper was prepared. These rulings were correct. If a man enter into a calculation with a pregnant woman, with whom for many months previous he has had repeated acts of sexual intercourse, as to what it would cost to support an illegitimate child for 12 years, and then offers to pay her $780 to provide for the child for that time, these facts would be strong evidence that he was the father of the child, and the original paper, containing the result of the calculation made under the circumstances stated, was properly admitted in corroboration of the witness' testimony.

The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth exceptions were reserved to the action of the court in admitting in evidence certain letters written by the traverser to Miss Cunningham. These letters were properly admitted. It is unnecessary to transcribe them in this opinion, but they tend to show the intimate character of the relations which existed between the parties. 3 R. C. L. § 44. The letter objected to in the ninth exception we regard as being of great probative value...