Raborn v. State
| Decision Date | 05 April 1916 |
| Citation | 72 So. 463,71 Fla. 387 |
| Parties | RABORN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Headnotes Filed August 8, 1916.
Error to Circuit Court, Walton County; Cephas L. Wilson, Judge.
J. D Raborn was convicted of unlawfully withholding the means of support from his children, and brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where the evidence on a trial for the willful withholding of the means of support from the defendant's children shows the following state of facts: The defendant left his home in a small country village and went to a distant state, where he engaged in the practice of his profession as a physician leaving his wife and six children and a man relative of his in a comfortable and roomy home abundantly furnished, and with an abundance of clothing and bed coverings, and after an absence of about 2 1/2 months he was brought back to this state under a warrant sued out by his wife, charging him with the crime of willfully withholding the means of support from his children. When he left he made out and verified divers accounts that he held against various of his patrons, and with a power of attorney dilivered them to the male relative of his who resided at his home with his family, with instructions to collect said accounts and to devote such collections to the maintenance and support of his family during his absence. That during the 2 1/2 months that he was away his family got the benefit of upwards of $167 in money sent back by him after he left, and some of it left by him at the time he left, and in groceries and country produce from collections made of the accounts left by him; $107.45 of this amount being admittedly received directly by his wife including therein $10 sent to her oldest daughter by the defendant. That, since his return to Florida, he has taken his three oldest children, a girl of 14 years of age and two boys, one 12 years and the other 9 years of age, and has put them at a boarding school where he maintains them; and besides since his return he has been and is still paying $30 per month to his wife for her support and that of his three remaining youngest children. Under these circumstances: Held, that a case has not been made out of a willful withholding from the defendant's children of the means of procuring the necessities of life. The law does not require luxuries to be supplied by the parent, but the means of support, that he must willfully withhold to make him amenable to punishment under this criminal statute, contemplate only the necessities of life such as he has the ability to supply.
COUNSEL J. W. Kehoe, of Panama City, and D. Stuart Gillis, of De Funiak Springs, for plaintiff in error.
T. F. West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial