State v. Brathovde
| Decision Date | 06 December 1900 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12,383 - (17).,s. 12,383 - (17). |
| Citation | 81 Minn. 501 |
| Parties | STATE v. IVER BRATHOVDE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
In the district court for Freeborn county defendant was convicted of being the father of a bastard child. From an order, Kingsley, J., denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
H. H. Dunn, for appellant.
R. S. Clements and Henry A. Morgan, for respondent.
A complaint in bastardy proceedings set out the charge in the following language:
"* * * who, being duly sworn, on her oath says that she is pregnant with a child, which, if born alive, will be a bastard, and that Iver Brathovde is the father of such child, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Minnesota," etc.
When the action came on for trial in the district court, defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence on behalf of the state, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense, nor a cause of action against defendant, and that said complaint was indefinite and uncertain both as to time and place. The objection was overruled, and the ruling is assigned as error.
1. So far as the rules of evidence and pleading are concerned, such proceedings are of a civil nature, not criminal, and the sufficiency of the complaint is to be tested by the rules applicable to civil actions. This complaint is attacked chiefly on the ground that defendant was not furnished with a definite statement as to time and place, and for that reason he could not be prepared to meet the charge. Under the bastardy act, proceedings must be commenced in the justice court by the filing of the complaint. An examination before the justice ensues, and the evidence is reduced to writing; and, in case the accused does not comply with the provisions of the statute as to the care of the child and expenses, if there is probable cause for believing him guilty, the examination is returned to the district court, and the accused is required to furnish bonds for his appearance. In the district court the trial proceeds upon the same complaint.
Defendant does not waive a valid objection to the complaint because taken for the first time in district court. The objection was timely, but the complaint was not open to the objection. It has been the tendency of this court not to apply a strict rule of construction in reference to pleadings in justice courts, for the reason that public necessity requires that persons not educated and experienced as lawyers act as justices and attorneys in those courts. The statute in question is very plain and simple, and seems to have been intentionally made so, because persons of limited legal learning and experience must be charged with its enforcement. The pleading under consideration should not be taken as a model, even in such proceedings, but it is strictly within the words of the statute. It might have been more specific and definite as to time and place, and, if a proper motion had been made to that effect, no doubt the court would have so ordered. But the defendant could not have been taken by surprise by such omissions. He had before him the examination taken in the justice court, and was fully apprised of the facts as testified to by the prosecution. The complaint was good as against the objection made. A similar complaint was held sufficient in Zweifel v. State, 27 Wis. 396.
2. Defendant also claims that the evidence does not justify the verdict. As is usual in this class of cases, there are some denials on the part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial