State v. Jehlik

• Decision Date: 07 February 1903
• Docket Number: 12,953
• Citation: 71 P. 572,66 Kan. 301
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. Anna Yilek, v. JACOB JEHLIK
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

71 P. 572

66 Kan. 301

THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. Anna Yilek, v. JACOB JEHLIK

No. 12,953

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 7, 1903

Decided January, 1903.

Error from Republic district court; HUGH ALEXANDER, judge.

STATEMENT.

THIS was a bastardy proceeding, brought by Anna Yilek, an imbecile, against Jacob Jehlik, who was mentally unsound and under guardianship. Her name was attached to a complaint charging him with being the father of her bastard child, on which the warrant was issued. He was arrested and brought before the magistrate, where a hearing was had and a decision made that defendant was the father of the child. The proceedings and papers were certified to the district court where a trial was had, resulting in a finding that the defendant was the father of the bastard child. After the return of the verdict and the discharge of the jury, judgment was rendered against the defendant, and upon the same day the court set aside the verdict and judgment, and dismissed the cause. The reasons for the rulings of the court are stated in the following written opinion:

"In this case, The State of Kansas, on relation of Anna Yilek, v Jacob Jehlik, the jury having found that the defendant is the father of the relatrix' child, and the court, having rendered a formal judgment on the verdict, now, of its own motion, vacates the said verdict and judgment and sets them aside, and the reasons for the court's action are these Until yesterday, when this trial began, the court had no knowledge or intimation that the relatrix was an imbecile. At a former term of this court, the question of the court's jurisdiction was raised by the defendant on the ground that the defendant was an imbecile and under guardianship. The court overruled the objection, and is still of the opinion that, but for the imbecility of the relatrix, which has developed on this trial, the court would have jurisdiction of the litigation. It sees no reason for changing its views expressed in the opinion handed down on the decision of that question at the former term; but when the relatrix was placed on the witness-stand in this trial, she showed conclusively to the court's mind that she was an imbecile, and did not understand the nature of an oath, and its binding obligation to speak the truth in court, and that she did not have intelligence enough to be a witness in any court; and it is apparent that such condition of mind on the part of the relatrix is one that existed at the time she swore to the complaint, as the foundation of this proceeding, and has existed ever since. The foundation of this proceeding was a warrant based upon a complaint which the law requires to be sworn to by the mother of the child. She alone can make such complaint. No other person can make such a complaint under the law in Kansas. The law requires her evidence to be taken on the trial before the justice of the peace, and reduced to writing; that it shall be read carefully over to her, and that she sign it. Now, the relatrix being an imbecile, as described, the court is thoroughly of the opinion that the complaint was an absolute nullity, and, being an absolute nullity, the warrant was also null and void, and that this court has no jurisdiction in this case, and for that reason the verdict and judgment are set aside and the case is dismissed at the cost of plaintiff."

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. BASTARDY -- Imbecile Relatrix. An unmarried woman, who is an imbecile and incompetent to testify, cannot institute and prosecute a proceeding in bastardy.

2. BASTARDY -- Court may Set Aside Judgment. After judgment had been rendered in a bastardy proceeding, and at the same term of court, it was competent for the court to set aside the judgment on its own motion, having ascertained that the complainant was mentally incapacitated, and that the court was without jurisdiction.

John C. Hogin, county attorney, and W. T. Dillon, for The State.

B. T. Bullen, and Jay F. Close, for defendant in error.

JOHNSTON C. J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.:

The controlling question presented here is, May an unmarried woman, who is an imbecile and incompetent to testify institute a bastardy proceeding? The proceeding is purely statutory, and, being somewhat penal in its character and procedure, the statutory requirements must be strictly followed. The common law adds nothing to the right of action, and the only methods of enforcing it are those prescribed, or warranted, by the statute conferring the right. The general provisions of the civil and criminal codes cannot be applied except so far as the bastardy statute itself makes...