State v. Karver

• Decision Date: 24 October 1884
• Citation: 21 N.W. 161,65 Iowa 53
• Parties: THE STATE v. KARVER
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

21 N.W. 161

65 Iowa 53

THE STATE v. KARVER

Supreme Court of Iowa, Dubuque

October 24, 1884

Appeal from Des Moines District Court.

THE action was brought to charge the defendant with the support of a bastard child. There was a verdict of guilty, and judgment was rendered against him accordingly. He appeals.

REVERSED.

Dodge & Dodge, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Attorney-general, for the State.

OPINION

ADAMS J.

The defendant is charged with being the father of a bastard child, born to one Lizzie Mohler, sister to the defendant's wife, all residing in the city of Burlington. The complainant testified in these words: "My sister and I were not on good terms all the time. Seventh of July I went over to his house--don't know what time. Mr and Mrs. Karver were all that were there. Left there quarter after nine. We had not gone more than three blocks when this thing took place, in an open public place, ground kind of sidling, fronting one street. He asked me on that lot. It was the first time anything ever took place between us. I did not consent. I jerked away and walked off. He followed me and threw me right down. He ravished me. I hollered. There were no marks on my person. My hat was torn." She also testified that he had connection with her another time by force in nearly the same place.

The defendant testified, denying that he ever had connection with her.

For the purpose of impairing the credibility of her testimony, the defendant's counsel asked him, when a witness upon the stand, two questions, which are in these words: "Int 28. You say that she came to your house in January, 1882. State how she came to leave. What was the trouble?" "Int. 29. You tell the court what imprudent act you noticed, or about a man being with her one night, at your house. Go on and tell it; in January, 1882?" Both these questions were disallowed as immaterial, and the ruling is assigned as error.

In our opinion the witness should have been allowed to answer them. That the complainant had an illegitimate child by some one is not denied. That she charged it upon the wrong person the jury did not believe. But she might do so if she was not a truthful person, and had a strong motive for doing it. The questions asked and disallowed indicated upon their face that the defendant expected to prove that the complainant was guilty of imprudent conduct with some man at the defendant's house, and that she had trouble,...