Winslow v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1891 |
| Citation | 9 So. 728,92 Ala. 78 |
| Parties | WINSLOW v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Pike county; WILLIAM H. PARKS, Judge.
Charles Winslow was convicted, under Code Ala. § 3757, of enticing a minor to leave his employer. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant was convicted under section 3757 of the Code. The prosecution was commenced by complaint made before a justice of the peace against the defendant by one Cornelia Hall. On the trial there was testimony going to show that the minor Anderson Smedley, for the enticement of whom the defendant was indicted, was hired to other parties in the neighborhood of the defendant previous to and at the time he was hired by the defendant. Upon the said Cornelia Hall being introduced as a witness for the state, she testified, among other things, that she was the mother of the minor, said Anderson Smedley, and that he was about 16 years old; that the name of the father of the boy was Alexander Smedley, who was her husband at the time said Anderson was born, and for several years previous thereto; that when the child was about two years old her husband deserted her, and several years after his desertion she procured a divorce from him, and married one Hall; and that she had the custody and maintenance of the said minor all the while from the time her husband deserted her up to the time he was hired by the defendant. Upon the said Cornelia Hall testifying that she had a letter written to the defendant, notifying him not to hire the minor, she also testified that she could neither read nor write. The defendant objected to her testimony in regard to the said letter, on the ground that there was other better evidence of the fact. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The state then proceeded to give notice to the defendant to produce the letter forthwith. The defendant objected to this, but the court overruled the objection, and permitted the state to give the said notice for the letter to be produced then and there. The defendant also excepted to this, and, upon the court's order to produce the letter, it being in his possession, it was offered in evidence.
P O. Harper, for appellant.
William L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted for "knowingly interfering with hiring, employing, enticing away or inducing a minor to leave the service of any person to whom such service is lawfully due," etc., as prohibited by section 3757 of the Criminal Code. The facts are, the father deserted his family some 14 or 15 years before the beginning of the prosecution, and has never lived with them since, or claimed the custody of or exercised any control over his child. The mother has had entire control, and by her own labor raised and maintained her son during the time he was unable to contribute to his own support. It is contended for the defendant that the services of the child are "lawfully due" the father, and not the mother, as averred in the complaint. Undoubtedly the father is the head of this family, and the law devolves upon him the duty and responsibility of maintaining his children, and, so far as he can, providing for their proper instruction and education. For this reason their custody and control is committed to him, and he is entitled to their services in preference to the mother or any other person. If the father, without excuse, refuses to recognize and perform his moral and legal duty in behalf of his children, and voluntarily abandons them while in a condition of helplessness and dependence to the care of the mother, he thereby forfeits, at least so long as his unjustifiable desertion continues, all claim or right, either to their custody or their services. The exclusive and paramount right of the father to the custody and service of the child over that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cofer v. Ensor
...held to be pecuniary compensation to parent.--Ib. Policy of Statute.--Williams v. S. & N.R. Co., 91 Ala. 635 (9 So. 77); Winslow v. State, 92 Ala. 78 (9 So. 728). Recovery solely for benefit of parents.--Tenn.C.I. & R. Co. v. Herndon, 100 Ala. 451 (14 So. 287). Parent can recover where mino......
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Drane
... ... under the employer's act (citing authority). As he cannot ... recover on these counts, under any state of evidence, there ... was no error in giving the general charge in favor of the ... defendant, of which plaintiff can complain, so far as it ... parent. Id ... Policy of statute. Williams v. S. & ... N.R. Co., 91 Ala. 635, 9 So. 77; Winslow v ... State, 92 Ala. 78, 9 So. 728. Recovery solely for ... benefit of parents. Tenn. C.I. & R. Co. v. Herndon, ... 100 Ala. 451, 14 So. 287 ... ...
-
Chastain v. State, 7 Div. 113
...admitting immaterial evidence in rebuttal of immaterial evidence introduced by him. Morgan v. State, 88 Ala. 223, 6 So. 761; Winslow v. State, 92 Ala. 78, 9 So. 728; Royal Insurance Company v. Robertson, 242 Ala. 460, 6 So.2d 880; Bradford v. Birmingham Electric Company, 227 Ala. 285, 149 S......
-
McGhee v. State, 6 Div. 834
...in chief cannot predicate error upon the admission of illegal evidence in rebuttal. Morgan v. State, 88 Ala. 223, 6 So. 761; Winslow v. State, 92 Ala. 78, 9 So. 728; Chastain v. State, 36 Ala.App. 186, 54 So.2d We pretermit a consideration of the court's ruling admitting the evidence compla......