Poplowski v. State ex rel. Lewandowski
| Decision Date | 06 December 1927 |
| Citation | 216 N.W. 488,194 Wis. 385 |
| Parties | POPLOWSKI v. STATE EX REL. LEWANDOWSKI. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to review a judgment of the Civil Court for Milwaukee County; Joseph A. Padway, Judge. Reversed.
Joseph Poplowski was adjudged to be the father of a bastard child born to Sarah Lewandowski. He sued out a writ of error to review that judgment.Loose & Topolinski, of Milwaukee (Leo J. Topolinski, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., and Eugene Wengert, Dist. Atty., and John J. Kenney, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Milwaukee, for defendant in error.
The case presents a plain issue of fact upon the question of whether Joseph Poplowski is the father of the child born to Sarah Lewandowski, an unmarried woman. Upon this question there is a direct conflict in the testimony of these two interested parties, with no direct corroboration of either party. The testimony on this contested issue of fact was so evenly balanced that the trial judge, in denying the motion for a new trial, said:
“Although if the court sat as a trial court and tried the issues of fact in this case, a different result might have been attained.”
Viewed from the standpoint of a case with the evidence so evenly balanced, the court is satisfied that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
[1][2] 1. Defendant called a witness who testified that he and the prosecutrix were out in an automobile one evening with another couple; that the other couple left the witness and the prosecutrix alone in the automobile parked on a country roadside at night for about 20 minutes. He was asked what he and the prosecutrix did in the car while the other two people were gone. The court then instructed the witness as to his right to refuse to answer, if the answer would tend to incriminate him, and added:
No question can be raised as to the right, if not the duty, of a trial court to instruct a witness as to his constitutional right to refuse to answer. But the trial judge did not confine himself to a statement of the constitutional rights of the witness. He threatened arrest. After this threat was made, the witness refused to answer and the defendant did not have the benefit of his testimony. Had the witness testified to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant, Matter of
...in Wisconsin, statements admitting cohabitation out of wedlock are against the declarant's penal interest); Poplowski v. State ex rel. Lewandowski, 194 Wis. 385, 216 N.W. 488 (1927), (in a paternity proceeding the trial court's right, if not its duty, was to instruct the witness of his righ......
-
Schuh v. State
...Paper Co., 147 Wis. 285, 291, 133 N.W. 142;Badger v. Janesville Cotton Mills, 95 Wis. 599, 603, 70 N.W. 687. In Poplowski v. State ex rel. Lewandowski, 194 Wis. 385, 216 N.W. 488, a bastardy proceeding, the court said: “The case presents a plain issue of fact upon the question of whether Jo......
-
City of Wauwatosa v. Guetzkow
...not duty-bound to advise a witness of her constitutional right not to incriminate herself. See, e.g., Poplowski v. State ex rel. Lewandowski, 194 Wis. 385, 386, 216 N.W. 488, 488 (1927). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in advising Yenorzeski that she was not im......
- Stoehr v. Town of Red Springs