State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtDIETERICH
Citation12 Wis.2d 96,106 N.W.2d 292
Decision Date29 November 1960
PartiesSTATE ex rel. Pauline KAPUSTA, Respondent, v. James Harold WEIR, Appellant.

Page 292

106 N.W.2d 292
12 Wis.2d 96
STATE ex rel. Pauline KAPUSTA, Respondent,
v.
James Harold WEIR, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Nov. 29, 1960.

Arthur DeBardeleben, Park Falls, William E. Chase, Park Falls, of counsel, for appellant.

John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, John H. Bowers, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

DIETERICH, Justice.

The defendant contends that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was insufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court.

The complainant, Pauline Kapusta, unmarried, was delivered of her second of three children born out of wedlock on June 29, 1957. Pauline Kapusta made complaint on July 29, 1959, charging the defendant, James Harold Weir with the paternity of the second child, Rosemarie. The complainant was twenty-nine years of age and the defendant, also unmarried, was sixty years of age.

The defendant first became acquainted with the complainant shortly before he hired her as a bartender at his Mellen, Wisconsin tavern in June, 1956. She began working for the defendant during the first week of June, 1956. The complainant testified that she first had intercourse with the defendant in August, 1956, and that following the first intercourse in August, 1956, they had intercourse through the months of October, November, December, 1956, and January, 1957. The child was born on June 29, 1957.

The complainant testified that conception occurred approximately in October, 1956. The acts of intercourse [12 Wis.2d 98] occurred at Weir's cabin at Lake Gallilee, and during the winter in the barroom of Weir's tavern. The complainant also testified that she had sexual intercourse with one Tom Doyle on Memorial Day of 1956, but did not have intercourse with any other man than the defendant from August, 1956, through January, 1957.

The defendant Weir admitted going out with the complainant between August, 1956, and the spring of 1957, and that they were alone at his cabin on two occasions. That on one of these occasions the complainant stood outside while he checked the windows, and that on another occasion in October, 1956, they went out for a few drinks and took a lunch to the cabin. They stayed at the cabin a couple of hours, but just sat around, had a couple of drinks and watched television.

The defendant denied having had any sexual relations or physical contact with, or any romantic interest in the complainant, and testified that his interest in the complainant was only as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Isham v. Mullally
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • December 29, 1961
    ...Sec. 52.355, Stats. State ex rel. Sowle v. Brittich (1959), 7 Wis.2d 353, 362, 96 N.W.2d 337; State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 106 N.W.2d The great weight and clear preponderance test means in substance as stated in Estate of Larsen (1959), 7 Wis.2d 263, 96 N.W.2d 489, th......
  • State ex rel. Schlehlein v. Duris, No. 204
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 29, 1972
    ...(1972), 53 Wis.2d 446, 193 N.W.2d 43; Schmidt v. Schmidt (1963), 21 Wis.2d 433, 440, 124 N.W.2d 569; State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 106 N.W.2d 'The rule in paternity proceedings is well defined in State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 99, 106 N.W.2d 292, i......
  • State ex rel. Stollberg v. Crittenden
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 4, 1966
    ...217, 225, 108 N.W.2d 374. 2 (1958), 5 Wis.2d 609, 611, 93 N.W.2d 348, 349; quoted with approval in State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 99, 106 N.W.2d 292; and State ex rel. Sarnowski v. Fox (1963), 19 Wis.2d 68, 70, 119 N.W.2d 451. 3 Kink v. Combs (1965), 28 Wis.2d 65, 72, 1......
  • State ex rel. Sarnowski v. Fox
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 5, 1963
    ...was sometime in the middle of June, 1960. The rule in paternity proceedings is well defined in State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 99, 106 N.W.2d 292, 294, in which this court 'In State ex rel. Kurtz v. Knutson, 1958, 5 Wis.2d 609, 611, 93 N.W.2d 348, 349, this court stated:......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • State ex rel. Isham v. Mullally
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • December 29, 1961
    ...Sec. 52.355, Stats. State ex rel. Sowle v. Brittich (1959), 7 Wis.2d 353, 362, 96 N.W.2d 337; State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 106 N.W.2d The great weight and clear preponderance test means in substance as stated in Estate of Larsen (1959), 7 Wis.2d 263, 96 N.W.2d 489, th......
  • State ex rel. Schlehlein v. Duris, No. 204
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 29, 1972
    ...(1972), 53 Wis.2d 446, 193 N.W.2d 43; Schmidt v. Schmidt (1963), 21 Wis.2d 433, 440, 124 N.W.2d 569; State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 106 N.W.2d 'The rule in paternity proceedings is well defined in State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 99, 106 N.W.2d 292, i......
  • State ex rel. Stollberg v. Crittenden
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 4, 1966
    ...217, 225, 108 N.W.2d 374. 2 (1958), 5 Wis.2d 609, 611, 93 N.W.2d 348, 349; quoted with approval in State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 99, 106 N.W.2d 292; and State ex rel. Sarnowski v. Fox (1963), 19 Wis.2d 68, 70, 119 N.W.2d 451. 3 Kink v. Combs (1965), 28 Wis.2d 65, 72, 1......
  • State ex rel. Sarnowski v. Fox
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 5, 1963
    ...was sometime in the middle of June, 1960. The rule in paternity proceedings is well defined in State ex rel. Kapusta v. Weir (1960), 12 Wis.2d 96, 99, 106 N.W.2d 292, 294, in which this court 'In State ex rel. Kurtz v. Knutson, 1958, 5 Wis.2d 609, 611, 93 N.W.2d 348, 349, this court stated:......
  • 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