State v. Byron
| Decision Date | 29 June 1918 |
| Citation | 104 A. 401 |
| Parties | STATE v. BYRON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Allen, Judge.
Arthur Byron was indicted for nonsupport of his illegitimate child, and the question whether the prosecution could be sustained was transferred in advance of trial without a ruling. Case discharged.
William H. Sleeper, of Exeter, Co. Sol., for the State. Scammon & Gardner, of Exeter, for respondent.
The statute upon which the prosecution is based (Laws 1913, c. 57, § 1) is as follows:
"Any person who shall without cause, desert or willfully neglect or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his wife in destitute or necessitous circumstances, or any, person who shall without lawful excuse desert or willfully neglect or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his or her legitimate or illegitimate minor child or children under the age of sixteen years in destitute or necessitous circumstances, shall be guilty of a crime and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen months, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court."
The respondent claims that, as he has not been adjudged guilty under the bastardy statute (P. S. c. 87, § 1), and ordered to contribute toward the support of the child, he cannot be found guilty of deserting or neglecting or refusing to support the child, under the statute quoted. That the father of a bastard is not entitled to the custody or the services of the child, and is not chargeable with its support, in the absence of a statute or contract giving him the right to the custody or imposing upon him the duty of support, cannot be seriously controverted. Hudson v. Hills, 8 N. H. 417; Kelley v. Davis, 49 N. H. 187, 6 Am. Rep. 499; Plymouth v. Haverhill, 69 N. H. 400, 401, 46 Atl. 460; Friesner v. Symonds, 46 N. J. Eq. 521, 527, 20 Atl. 257; 7 C. J. 955.
But by section 4 of the act for the maintenance of bastard children (P. S. c. 87) he may be ordered, upon proceedings brought for the purpose, to pay a reasonable sum to the mother or to the selectmen of the town liable for the maintenance of the child, to be applied for such maintenance. A statutory duty is thus imposed upon him, under the order of the court, to support his illegitimate child. Brown v. Mansur, 64 N. H. 39, 40, 5 Atl. 768. It is unreasonable to assume that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archibald v. Whaland
...legal duty of the parent that the enactment of the statute was intended to prevent by declaring it to be a crime. State v. Byron, 79 N.H. 39, 41, 104 A. 401, 402 (1918). Both the criminal and civil statutes have the same purpose, the support and care of neglected or abandoned minor children......
-
J. M. S. v. Benson
...See e. g., Simmons v. Bull, 21 Ala. 501, 56 Am.Dec. 257 (1852); Baby X v. Misiano, 373 Mass. 265, 366 N.E.2d 755 (1977); State v. Byron, 79 N.H. 39, 104 A. 401 (1918); Moncrief v. Ely, 19 Wend. 405 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1838); Allen v. Hunnicutt, 230 N.C. 49, 52 S.E.2d 18 (1949); State v. Boston, 69 ......
-
Brauch v. Shaw
...father has no right to the custody and control of the child...." Hudson v. Hills, 8 N.H. 417, 418 (1836); see State v. Byron, 79 N.H. 39, 40, 104 A. 401, 402 (1918). The question, therefore, is whether the common law can continue to be the prevailing standard for determining custody of ille......
-
State v. Sims
...some circumstances be 'justified'. Reference must be made to this article to discover the bases for 'justified' conduct'.5 State v. Byron, 79 N.H. 39, 104 A. 401; Porter v. Wainright, 104 N.J.L. 51, 139 A. 394; Coan v. State, 224 Ala. 584, 141 So. 263; Morgan v. State, 28 Ala.App. 241, 182 ......