State v. Clark
| Decision Date | 26 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 73,73 |
| Parties | STATE, v. CLARK. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen. and Claude L. Love, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert B. Broughton, Member of Staff, Raleigh, for the State.
Don C. Young, Asheville, for defendant.
The defendant assigns error in the denial of his motion for judgment as of nonsuit on the second count.
The facts were these: The defendant and the State's witness were married May 19, 1950, in South Carolina, and on their return to Asheville the fact of the marriage was not revealed and the wife continued to live with her mother. July 15 they began living together in a five-room house on Middlemount Avenue, the home of defendant's mother in which defendant had one-third interest. The wife was then pregnant. The latter part of September the wife went to Marion where her father and other relatives lived, and where she did some work as a baby-sitter, returning, however, frequently on week-ends to Asheville. She returned to defendant's home the last of November, and remained there until January 1, 1951, when she left and went to live with her mother, then residing in Burnsville. She assigned as reason for leaving the defendant's home that his conduct to her was unkind and such as to cause her to leave. The defendant is employed by the Tidewater Supply Company and earns $40 a week, out of which he made payments on his automobile. The baby was born March 6, 1951. The defendant paid the doctor's and hospital bills and is paying $10 a week for the support of the child. After the separation defendant went to see his wife to induce her to return home with the baby, but she declined to do so. This was after the case was in court.
As to the charge of neglect to provide adequate support for her while living with her, the defendant's wife testified in part as follows: * * * Mrs. Clark (his mother) was good to me.'
The period of time during which the defendant's wife lived in the home with him was apparently a little more than 3 months, and the question raised by defendant's motion to nonsuit on the second count in the bill is whether accepting her testimony as true it affords substantial evidence of willful neglect on his part to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arnett
...food, clothing, et cetera, reasonably suitable to the condition in life and commensurate with the defendant's ability. State v. Clark, 234 N.C. 192, 66 S.E.2d 669; Szilagyi v. Szilagyi, 170 Misc. 1009, 11 N.Y.S.2d 469, 472; People v. Rogers, Co.Ct., 37 N.Y.S.2d 254; 2 Words and Phrases, 'Ad......
-
State v. Taylor
...established the illegality of the sale and was abundantly sufficient to take the case to the jury and support a verdict. State v. Clark, 234 N.C. 192, 66 S.E.2d 669; State v. Marsh, 234 N.C. 101, 66 S.E.2d 684; State v. Ellers, 234 N.C. 42, 65 S.E.2d 503. It is and has been, since the enact......
-
State v. Love
...goods bought for the direct benefit of the members of the family, such as food, clothing and other necessaries. And in State v. Clark, 234 N.C. 192, 66 S.E.2d 669, 671, opinion by Devin, C. j., speaking of the obligation of a husband to provide adequate support for his wife, had this to say......
-
Lum v. Fullaway
...imposing a duty of support as requiring the payment of medical expenses. (Owens v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 110, 116 P. 345;State v. Clark, 234 N.C. 192, 66 S.E. [2d] 669; Boller v. Crider, 31 N.Y.S. [2d] 987) Furthermore, the inclusion of necessary medical treatment is implicit in the provision w......