Reynolds v. Hassam
| Decision Date | 17 January 1908 |
| Citation | 68 A. 645,80 Vt. 501 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | REYNOLDS v. HASSAM. |
Exceptions from Windsor County Court; Wm. H. Taylor, Judge.
Bastardy proceedings by Mattie C. Reynolds against Herbert Hassam. Verdict that defendant was the father of the child, and judgment thereon. Defendant excepted, and also petitioned for a new trial. Judgment affirmed, and petition for new trial dismissed.
Argued before POWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, and WATSON, JJ.
John J. Wilson and Stickney, Sargent & Skeels, for plaintiff. Wallace N. Batchelder and Davis & Davis, for defendant
The defendant claimed that as the result of some disease or injury of his genital organs, or of surgical operations had for his relief, he was not capable of begetting the plaintiff's child. It was of course the position of the plaintiff that no disease or injury had been shown that could justify the conclusion that this incapacity existed. In this situation the comment and query of plaintiff's counsel to which exception was taken, although possibly suggestive of prior misconduct on the part of defendant, cannot be treated as legal error.
The defendant excepted to the order for the support of the child "being made payable to the town of Bethel." It is now urged in support of the exception that there was no evidence tending to show that the child was chargeable or likely to become chargeable to the town. No question having been made prior to the judgment as to the overseer's right to prosecute, the exception taken will not enable the defendant to question the town's right to the payment Nor was the exception sufficiently specific to save the questions now argued as to the want of terms limiting the successive payments to the life of the child and its need of support
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant's case for a new trial consists in part of the affidavit of his son. The plaintiff came to live in her father's family, where the defendant and his men boarded, late in December, 1905, and remained there, with occasional brief absences, until the very last of January, when she left town, and remained away several weeks. The child was born October 23d. These facts, which must have been known to the defendant, were sufficient to charge him with the preparation of a defense having reference to the month of January. The defense put in, other than evidence as to defendant's condition, was confined to his own testimony in denial of the several acts of intercourse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dieter v. Scott
...Court Rule 4, para. 1. Picknell v. Fulton, 89 Vt. 51, 55, 94 A. 104; Willard v. Norcross, 86 Vt. 426, 443, 85 A. 904; Reynolds v. Hassam, 80 Vt. 501, 504, 68 A. 645. We are asked, however, to remand this cause to prevent a failure of justice. We have the discretionary power to do this, and ......
-
Dieter v. Scott
... ... cannot be invoked on behalf of the assignee to avoid ... liability thereunder. Holton, Admr. v ... Hassam , 94 Vt. 324, 329, 330, 111 A. 389; ... Sanders v. Partridge , 108 Mass. 556, 558, ... The ... finding that the defendant has ... 1. Picknell v. Fulton , ... 89 Vt. 51, 55, 94 A. 104; Willard v ... Norcross , 86 Vt. 426, 443, 85 A. 904; ... Reynolds v. Hassam , 80 Vt. 501, 504, 68 A ... We are ... asked, however, to remand this cause to prevent a failure of ... justice ... ...
-
State v. Hathorn
...no affidavits of counsel have been filed in support of it. This is not in accordance with the rule in such proceedings. Reynolds v. Hassam, 80 Vt. 501, 504, 68 A. 645; Tatt v. Taft, 82 Vt. 64, 71 A. 831. In a deposition taken one of the two counsel, who represented the petitioner on trial, ......
-
State v. Clarence Hathorn
... ... filed in support of it. This is not in accordance with the ... rule in such proceedings. Reynolds v ... Hassam, 80 Vt. 501, 504, 68 A. 645; Taft v ... Taft, 82 Vt. 64, 71 A. 831. In a deposition taken, ... one of the two counsel, who ... ...