State v. Coolidge
| Decision Date | 03 February 1913 |
| Citation | 129 P. 1088,72 Wash. 42 |
| Parties | STATE v COOLIDGE. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Chehalis County; Mason Irwin Judge.
Loren Z. Coolidge was convicted of willfully neglecting to support his minor child, and appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to enter judgment for accused.
O. M Nelson, of Montesano, for appellant.
W. E Campbell, of Hoquiam, and A. Emerson Cross, of Aberdeen, for respondent.
Defendant was charged in the court below with willfully neglecting and refusing to provide for the support and maintenance of his minor child, Ione Coolidge; she being in necessitous circumstances. The charge was under section 2444, Rem. & Bal. Code. Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted. No judgment seems to have been entered; but the court made an order, fixing an amount to be paid each week, and staying proceedings pending the performance of a bond conditioned as follows: 'Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that said defendant, Loren Z. Coolidge, do forthwith enter into a recognizance in the sum of $500, without surety conditioned that the said defendant, Loren Coolidge, will faithfully pay weekly the sum of $2.50, commencing with the coming week, payable not later than Saturday of each week to Blanche Coolidge for the benefit of said child, said payments to be made in said sum for the benefit of said child, until the further order of the court; and it is further ordered by the court that so long as the said defendant, Loren Coolidge shall faithfully comply with the conditions of such recognizance, conditioned as herein provided, all proceedings herein shall be stayed until the further order of this court; but if said defendant, Loren Z. Coolidge, shall fail to comply with the conditions of such recognizance, or shall fail to comply with any order for his appearance in said court, such recognizance shall be forfeited, and said proceedings in said cause shall be revived and continued, as if no stay had been had in said cause.' A motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were overruled and severally excepted to.
The bond was given, and the state has interposed a motion to dismiss, upon the ground that the judgment has been performed, and that the giving of the bond operates as a cessation of the controversy, and as a waiver of defendant's right to appeal. The motion will be overruled. It may be that a case might arise where the giving of a bond, conditioned for the performance of a judgment, would operate as a waiver of the right to appeal; but it cannot be so held in this case. The verdict still stands, and defendant is entitled to urge such legal defense as he may have thereto.
It is also insisted that the court cannot consider the errors assigned, as there is no statement of fact, 'only a bill of exceptions.' The bill is sufficient to raise the question presented.
On November 20, 1911, a decree of divorce was entered in the superior court for Chehalis county, dissolving the bonds of matrimony theretofore existing between defendant and Blanche Coolidge. The custody of their minor child was awarded to the mother, and defendant was directed and required to pay to his former spouse the sum of $20 per month for the support and maintenance of the child. That he did not perform the obligation put upon him is evidenced by this proceeding and the verdict of the jury.
It is the contention of the defendant that, the child being awarded to the mother, and he being subject to the further orders of the court in the divorce proceeding, no criminal charge will lie against him; that the statute was enacted to enforce the performance of a common-law duty, and that, where the civil side of the court had assumed jurisdiction and fixed the duty of a delinquent parent by a charge in money, no common-law duty remains; that his whole duty is merged in the decree of the court, with such modifications as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donaghy v. State
...instance, by leaving it alone to starve or freeze or exposing it to some contagious disease. Gedney v. Dey, 44 N.J.L. 576; State v. Coolidge, 72 Wash. 42, 129 P. 1088. It is respectfully submitted that the rule down in the case of State v. Thornton, 232 Mo. 298, 134 S.W. 519, 32 L. R. A. (N......
-
Donaghy v. State
...by leaving it alone to starve or freeze or exposing it to some contagious disease. Gedney v. Day, 44 N. J. Law, 576; State v. Coolidge, 72 Wash. 42, 129 Pac. It is respectfully submitted that the rule laid down in the case of State v. Thornton, 232 Mo. 298, 134 S. W. 519, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.......
-
State v. Worthington
......But some. states hold that since the court of chancery has jurisdiction. to enforce its decrees, an independent action or criminal. proceeding for the same purpose is not available. We cite the. following cases, which seem to be in the minority: State. v. Coolidge, 72 Wash. 42, 129 P. 1088; People v. Dunston, 173 Mich. 368, 138 N.W. 1047, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1065; State v. Sweet, 179 Minn. 32, 228 N.W. 337. . . Our. task is to examine our statutes, as construed by our courts,. and see if they were intended to operate to the exclusion of. ......
-
State v. Constable
......519, 32. L.R.A. (N. S.) 841. In other states it is held that the. father is not amenable to the non-support law, where a child. has been awarded the mother under a divorce decree and the. decree did not require the father to contribute to the. support of the child. State v. Coolidge, 72 Wash. 42, 129 P. 1088; People v. Hartman, 23 Cal.App. 72,. 137 P. 611. But he may be found guilty if the decree giving. the mother the custody requires the father to continue to. contribute to the support of the child. People v. Schlott, 162 Cal. 347, 122 P. 846. In the cases of. State v. ......