State v. Hiertz
| Decision Date | 20 November 1918 |
| Citation | 41 N.D. 55,170 N.W. 118 |
| Parties | STATE v. HIERTZ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
The legal proceedings in cases of bastardy, though commenced in some what similar manner to those of a criminal case, that is, by the making of a complaint and the issuing of a warrant of arrest based upon the complaint, are, nevertheless, under our statute, “civil” in their nature.
Defendant was put upon his trial before a court and jury on the charge of bastardy, and the jury returned a verdict against him. Held, that the verdict is amply sustained by the evidence.
Defendant in due time made a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The motion was overruled, and in this there was no error.
Appeal from District Court, Richland County; Frank P. Allen, Judge.
Bastardy proceeding by the State of North Dakota against John Hiertz. Judgment against defendant, and, from an order denying his motion for a new trial, he appeals. Order affirmed.W. S. Lauder, of Wahpeton, for appellant.
J. G. Forbes, State's Atty., and W. E. Purcell, both of Wahpeton, for the State.
This is an appeal from the district court of Richland county overruling a motion of the defendant for a new trial. The defendant was brought before W. P. Robbins, justice of the peace, upon a warrant issued by him, upon a complaint signed and sworn to by Clara Hoffman. In the complaint she alleged that she was an unmarried woman and was on the 27th day of March, 1916, delivered of a bastard child, begotten by the defendant, John Hiertz, on or about the 27th day of June, 1915, in the township of Barney, in the county of Richland and state of North Dakota. A hearing was had before the justice of the peace, the defendant being present. At such hearing Clara Hoffman was examined as a witness, and the court, after hearing the testimony, required the defendant to give bond in accordance with the provisions of section 10486 of the Compiled Laws of 1913; the purpose of such bond being to require the appearance of defendant at the next term of the district court of Richland county to answer the complaint, and to abide the judgment and orders of the court therein. The case was tried in the district court of Richland county to the court and a jury. A verdict was rendered, and judgment was duly entered thereon on the 29th day of February, 1917. The judgment was that John Hiertz should forthwith pay to Clara Hoffman for and toward the maintenance and education of the child, $200 in cash, and $12 on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter until the further order of the court, and that he secure the payments of said sum by an undertaking with sufficientsureties, to be approved by the clerk of the court; and that, in case defendant neglected or refused to comply with any part of the judgment, he should be committed to the county jail in and for Richland county until discharged therefrom according to law. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied.
The material facts are as follows: The complaining witness, Clara Hoffman, was a single woman, 21 years of age, a resident of Richland county, N. D. She was employed on defendant's farm as a servant part of the year 1913, and from June, 1914, to April, 1915, and from June until October, 1915. The defendant is a single man, a farmer, who cultivates three quarter sections of land. The complaining witness claimed that an act of intercourse was had by the defendant with her on June 27, 1915, and a child was born in Richland county, N. D., on March 27, 1916. Complaining witness also testifies that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her three or four times a week continuously during most of the time she was employed by him. She testifies she never had sexual intercourse with any other man, and that the defendant is the father of the child. She admits no act of sexual intercourse with the defendant after June 27, 1915. The defendant denies that he ever at any time had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness. The defendant placed other witnesses on the stand to prove the immoral character of the complaining witness. Peter Schonnes, one of his witnesses, testified that he had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness at various times, among other times being one in April, 1915, and one when she came to his room on defendant's premises about the 21st or 22d of June, 1915. There were other witnesses who gave testimony tending to impeach the moral character of the complaining witness. The jury, after listening to all the testimony, including that of the complaining witness, returned a verdict as above set forth.
[1][2] The proceedings in this case, though commenced in a somewhat similar manner to those of a criminal case, by the making of a complaint and the issuing of a warrant of arrest based upon a complaint, are, nevertheless, under our statute, civil in their nature. The state is interested to the extent that it does not desire the child to become a public charge, and it is protected in this regard where a sufficient sum is adjudged to be paid by the father of the illegitimate child for its support, maintenance, and education. By such a judgment the mother of the child is also assisted in rearing the child and in its support and maintenance. The sole question involved in this case is whether or not the defendant is the father of the child in question. The jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses. It may give credit to the testimony of one witness and discredit the testimony of others. In this case it evidently discredited the testimony of the defendant and his witnesses and believed the testimony of the complaining witness and that of other witnesses produced by plaintiff, and rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor. We do not think such verdict or the judgment entered thereon is against the weight of the testimony. There is nothing in the record to indicate the jury was in any way prejudiced, or that its verdict was rendered through bias or sympathy.
[3] The motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. In support of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Southall
...of the trial court and to justify the judgment entered pursuant thereto. See State v. Peoples, 9 N.D. 146, 82 N.W. 749; State v. Hiertz, 41 N.D. 55, 170 N.W. 118; State v. Fuchs, 48 N.D. 730, 186 N.W. It is contended by the appellant that the order of the trial court, directing the sheriff ......
-
State ex rel Bly v. Wold
...cases involving practically the identical situation as in this case by the Supreme Courts in other states in the following cases: State v. Hiertz, 170 N.W. 118; State v. Deike, 144 Minn. 453, 175 N.W. 100; State v. Wiebke, 154 Minn. 61, 191 N.W. 249; State v. Schmidt, 155 Minn. 440, 193 N.W......
-
State v. Southall
...of the trial court and to justify the judgment entered pursuant thereto. See State v. Peoples, 9 N. D. 146, 82 N. W. 749;State v. Hiertz, 41 N. D. 55, 170 N. W. 118;State v. Fuchs, 48 N. D. 730, 186 N. W. 752. It is contended by the appellant that the order of the trial court, directing the......
-
State ex rel. Bly v. Wold
...practically the identical situation as in this case by the Supreme Courts in other states in the following cases: State v. Hiertz, 41 N. D. 55, 170 N. W. 118;State v. Deike, 144 Minn. 453, 175 N. W. 1000;State v. Wiebke, 154 Minn. 61, 191 N. W. 249;State v. Schmidt, 155 Minn. 440, 193 N. W.......