State v. Severson

• Decision Date: 25 October 1889
• Citation: State v. Severson, 78 Iowa 653, 43 N.W. 533 (Iowa 1889)
• Parties: STATE v. SEVERSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

78 Iowa 653

43 N.W. 533

STATE

v.SEVERSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 25, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Winnebago county; G. W. RUDDICK, Judge.

Proceedings under the bastardy act to compel the defendant to maintain his alleged illegitimate child.There was a verdict of guilty, and from a judgment of maintenance the defendant appeals.L. S. Butler and W. A. Chapman, for appellant.

GRANGER, J.

1.We are asked to set aside the verdict in this case because it is not sustained by the evidence.It is not claimed that the evidence is not conflicting.There is a decided conflict of evidence, and the testimony cannot be read by a disinterested party without a feeling of uncertainty as to what is a proper result.This is a proceeding to establish a civil liability, and the issue is to be determined by a preponderance of the evidence.State v. McGlothlen, 56 Iowa, 544, 9 N. W. Rep. 893.The weight of the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses, are argued to us in support of appellant's claim for a reversal.These witnesses were before the jury and the district judge.Their opportunity was better than ours to judge of their credibility, and the value of their statements.The district court has a discretion as to awarding new trials that this court has not; and wisely so, as its presence enables it to observe facts not possible of reproduction here, and to better know if the interests of justice demand a rehearing of issues of fact.This court has said: “It is not our province to overrule both the jury and the court in the conclusion reached as to who was mistaken, when all the facts before them are not before us.”This statement was made merely in view of the fact that the testimony was conflicting.Sloan v. Railway Co., 62 Iowa, 728, 16 N. W. Rep. 331.Even though we might disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, we cannot, for that reason, grant a new trial.The jury believed the witnesses; and the district court, with its discretion, refuses to disturb the finding.Johnson v. Railway Co., 58 Iowa, 348, 12 N. W. Rep. 329.We cannot reverse the judgment in this case for insufficiency of proofs without disregarding these with other precedents.

2.While the defendant was being examined, and on the redirect, he was giving testimony as to his having seen the prosecuting witness in February before the alleged intercourse, and the court made this remark: “I don't think you need to account for this defendant at an earlier date than the 20th of June, or later than the 4th of July.”This remark was based on the testimony as to the time of the intercourse, fixing it about the...