*1 May 27, Dist., Div. Two. No. 15135. Second 1946.] [Civ. etc., Respondent, Minor, BERRY, ANN CAROL Appellant. CHAPLIN, SPENCER CHARLES *2 Wright Millikan, Loyd Wright, & E. Millikan and Charles Wright S. Appellant. Earl Scott,
Joseph Scott, J. A. H. Risse J. Howard Cuthbert Respondent. Ziemann for
WILSON, proceeding J. This isa filiation commenced grand Civil under sections 196a and Code guardian prior plaintiff’s ad litem plaintiff mother of as judgment prayed be de birth was that defendant a plaintiff, and that he clared to be the father of during pregnancy and birth for the pay for medical care birth, plaintiff after plaintiff, support mother for the together attorneys’ costs. with fees and stipulation of the action
Following the commencement . attorneys then signed by guardian litem and the ad was and his attor- by defendant representing plаintiff, Berry, mother of the Joan neys, the claim of which recites prospective child, begotten that she was then with child 20, 1942, defendant on December about and the denial stipula- defendant he was the father of said child. The tion, hereinafter, the details of which will be stated provides making child, Berry, for the of tests of blood of the Joan stipulation approved of defendant. Said was judge Baird, superior Honorable William S. court. by phy- After the child blood tests were made birth stipulation. sicians, provided They in the unani- chosen as mously reported their conclusion from tests that defendant rep- child. at time the father of the Counsel who not, plaintiff provided stipulation, did file resented as receipt report. a dismissal the action of said Thereupon made motion for dismissal based report. physicians’ and the terms Coun- represent for the attor- sel were substituted who now neys who into said commenced action and entered who guardian litem stipulation, ad was substituted by the grandmother. dismiss heard The motion to No Stanley Mosk, judge superior court. Honorable concerning hearing the motion offered at the evidence was *3 Judge stipulation to the minor. justness the fairness of the 8, 1944. Defendant then March Mosk denied the motion on setting complaint denying allegations of the and answered the reference stipulation to which up an defense the as affirmative payment the mаde, report physicians, the has been alleg- agreed pay, and stipulation the the sums he which report, ing stipulation, physicians’ the by reason the that estopped pro- sums, plaintiff payment of said the the The case came on for trial before ceed with the action. Kincaid, whereupon, on motion Clarence L. Honorable and ruled defense was considered defendant, special pre- Again evidence was proceeded to trial. no before the case stipulation for the best interests the as sented to whether first affirmative de- that “the The court ruled of the minor. prosecution further in bar to the plea is a herein which fense ’’ is denied. of the action rendered a verdict' was tried before The ease judgment A de- plaintiff. so the father of that defendant is adjudg- with the verdict creeing accordance was entered guardian ad litem the sum of ing pay to the that defendant during of the child and education support for per week the $75 court, order of minority, or until the further her attorneys’ $5,000 fees. sum of judgment has from the whole of the appealed
Defendant as attor- requiring payment said sum except portion neys’ fees.
(Plaintiff judgment appealed portions from those awarding support and maintenance amounts for her said claiming are insuffi- attorneys, for that both the fees of day by separate opinion this appeal cient. Her is covered 453]).) (post, p. filed 669 [169 dis- denying 1. Did the court motion to err defendant’s stipulation
miss reference has been the action? The to which among provisions: That following, made contains the subsequent defen- making to the said claim Joan money agreed set voluntarily pay dant to her the sums of support forth stipulation in the for medical care and for her necessary hospital expenses and for all for her and medical proper during pregnancy of her and confine- period care child, upon ment and condi- attendant birth of voluntarily after its tion that submit said child she would determining its purpose birth medical tests for paternity make herself and said child and that she would all could be made com- available at times so that said tests superior petent experts; medical an order be made that pay whereby required to to the court defendant shall be in the for guardian ad litem forth the amounts set $5,000 attorneys’ sum of purposes, said and that fees attorneys if directly plaintiff; for paid shall be to the pay action shall tried defendant shall additional sum brought $5,000 attorneys’ feés; as the action shall not be to trial after birth of the child until at least four months as appropriate and not until shall have been conducted tests provided shall have stipulation; after said child made period lived for a of not than four months it shall be less having made; one purpose available such tests defendant, guardian physician one shall be named third litem, physicians ad two chosen shall select so matters, who shall especially “who shall be skilled *4 accepted medical science make a blood test tests or other establishing and who proving paternity, purpose for the and to findings respect with report shall their conclusions and to the guardian ad litem and paternity to the of said child said by said Berry shall be bound defendant”; that Joan said inter- party in and real stipulation she as if were the in entering shall into the defendant, stipulation, est; thereby admitting any way as be deemed or construed no contrary allegation complaint, in but on denies that he is be the father of the child. or could provision following paragraph contains the under which that, phy- the report reason defendant claims mandatory: sicians, dismissal of action is made phy- two said stipulated “It that in event is further determine, test sicians as the result said or tests shall child Joan herein not the father said defendant Berry, shall in above entitled action then and such event the dismissed, prejudice, be the defendant forthwith with and obligated any other or herein make shall thereafter any payments purpose further for the above entitled action shall plaintiff’s attorneys event record whatsoever. fail or of the above entitled court refuse to file with the clerk under prejudice, order action with for the dismissal of said agreed upon, and the time hereinabove circumstances at prior may, then without and the defendant event notice, said copy of medi- to the above entitled court a acknowledged report cal them be- physicians, of said two Notary Public, presentation fore of said ac- and then knowledged shall and copy report, of said the said court action, entitled thereupon order the above dismissal of ’’ prejudice. with signed by stipulation said Attached to the is a statement by counsel represented Berry Joan which recites: That she advice; that she choosing acting of her and their own under аgrees provisions all of its and stipulation read the of all agrees release defendant consideration thereof may against have him claims that she now hereafter has or agrees except that she stipulation; as set that she forth said will, at all rea- will available and make herself the child any physical all times, cooperate agree sonable have made her and of the child medical examinations attorneys purpose for the defendant’s making stipulation; that she in said provided the tests report shall physicians’ agrees further the event the she will of her child show that defendant is not father not, per- and will accept report establishing that fact said as claims child, make further sonally on behalf maintenance, care and against support, or of herself. education of the child agreement Joan attached
Said
657 Baird, who, Judge S. without said William presented to any evidence, and without taking of hearing, a without the stipulation or finding making inquiry as to whether or a child, signed was for the best interests of the order foregoing reading “Upon reading an as follows: order Berry, it is of Joan agreement stipulation and statement hereby ap- the same is said be and ordered that perform the terms parties are ordered to proved and the agreement, stipulation, The thereof as set forth therein.” 10, on 1943. and order were filed June guardian attorneys were with
The ad litem and power was without to power out to enter into the court pro approve 196a the Civil stipulation. Section Code illegitimate child to vides that a civil suit in of a minor behalf obligation may main parent support enforce the of a it be guardian tained ad litem and in such action the court obliga power performance to order and enforce the power guardian tion. of a ad litem in such an action is The guardian, In effect the court is the not unlimited. guardian ad is an officerof the court person named as litem
appointing agent him and is of the court. “He is like Superior Court, agent powers.” (Cole v. with limited Cal. 86, Am.Rep. 78].) minor, necеssity A who must of [49 appear by guardian, his is not bound the admissions of the guardian giving away which mean the sacrifice or (Kidwell Ketler, v. property. ward’s [79 514], See, also, Lawrence, v. Waterman 217 [79 212].) guardian relationship Am.Dec. The between a ad litem attorney employs or whom he and the minor is not the attorney same as between an and an client. It is adult rights duty guardian attorney protect and the minor, duty and it is the of the court to that such see rights protected. may disregard are court or The set aside guardian already concessions which have not been approved judicially and which are shown to the court to have Any improvidently ap been made. acts or concessions right pаrently minor, or material waive surrender right trial, such as the to a should be set aside unless or, any event, prejudicial shown to be beneficial rights (Eidam Finnegan, interests of the minor. 507].) 933, 934, appoint
Minn. 53
N.W.
16 L.R.A.
guardian
ment
ad
technicality
litem is not a bare
shadowy
guardian
perfunctory
than
officeof
involves more
litem, protect or de
duty
guardian
duties.
It
ad
litem,
guardian ad
can
suit,
case
fend
as the
be.
anything in favor of
anything against nor waive
neither admit
required to
ward,
adversary
of the infant must
but the
Mabey,
tween defendant to presented answer, stipulation entered into Judge was introduced aрproval. Baird for his No evidence terms of the whether the from which the court could determine the interests stipulation fair or whether were and reasonable that provided of the instrument protected. minor were way judgment against by of dismissal go the minor should re physicians made a of the action the event that two verified, to be port, stipulation which was not knowledge of facts the defendant. Without favorable to rights of the supervision over the court could not exercise litem,. order recited guardian ad minor or acts of the same was stipulation” the “upon reading foregoing its terms. perform to approved parties and the were ordered guardian by the had been done approval This was an what signed order attorneys judge who not because minor but best interests found that it was for the attorneys guardian solely the consent of the because satisfied. given had been attorneys for the guardian ad litem nor the Neither the depriv- judgment to a minor, both, power had to consent nor from defendant support ing right to claim the minor of its evi- all available opportunity of a trial at without the jury, not for consideration dence could be introduced proper for the parties considered merely as the such evidence issue involved. determination agreed as shall be only evidence such stipulation A to be allowed will not be admissible partiеs shall upon by the evi of other reception the court the action of control will given it. Courts to effect to be dence or to determine conduct or the justice be controlled to permit the course of to defeat manner as in circumscribed of an action to be arrogate judicial functions cannot justice. Parties the ends of juris the court they agree to oust nor can to themselves given diction it law all applicable to admit evidence ato judgment canse and render accordingly. (McCormick Woodmen World, Cal.App. 568, 943].) Neither deprived jurisdiction can a court be its admit competent agreement circumstantial an parties requiring positive proof (Utter direct and of a fact. Ins. Co., Travelers’ 812, 816, Mich. 545 N.W. 8 A.L.R. Fidelity Deposit Davis, & Co. v. Kan. 790 [284 430, 434, experience A.L.R. 321], the court that the said of seven proved pro centuries has that the rules of evidence general mote the welfare and for the best interests of the are people, agreement and that an con as to what shall constitute clusive attempt evidence is an to make the court ministerial parties agree officer of the parties to do that which the shall Varain, 23], be done. In 20 Cal.App. Conwell stipulation open was made in court that the cause be sub single question mitted line of fact whether one writ ten in ink line, in a document was above or benеath another judgment be rendered for should accordingly handwriting expert appointed as a report concerning superim court should which line was posed upon 528) (p. the other. The held that while court attorney authority stipulate upon matters, had certain the, cause re be submitted unsworn *7 port expert report of an be conclusive that such should was not be tolerated. to readily
An examination will of the cases cited defendant although that they applicable show are not to the case at bar may arguendo statements that seemto favor his be found therein theory. 710], Price, Cal.App. In the of In 61 592 P. case re [215 ad litem had em guardian the mother of the minor аnd not the ployed attorneys en question was whether in paid stipulation titled was to be for their services. No only question the volved and decided the court was that may guardian appointed when ad litem has no one else a been Hatton, 195 132 powers. Newport In v. Cal. exercise his [231 minors were defen 987], P. of an action which both sides attorney, fraudulent controlled same dants were the truly rights the facts were not the minors concealment of Hastings, In presented Estate to court. pro in a expert witness 973], appointed an the court [274 person. deceased ceeding of the estate of a by a claimant attorney incompetent claimant not held that court objection expert all having appointment made an to the no However, objections were waived. there was to such action binding it or that evidence should be stipulation weight given greater than such evidence any should be Hill, Taylor usually In v. accorded. attorney employed only point an 922], 46 P. was whether litem, statutory notice a guardian power ad had to waive
of a claim. to question here was rest stipulation of the
The effect rights judgment of the final and the determination report physi two solely upon unborn infant the unverified power attempt deprive the court cians. This was concerning of the child paternity receive report physicians, and to make cоnclusive than the " Legislature to con by the be that which has not declared been 1978), (see and which the Proe., clusive Civ. Code "§§ conclusive. expressly has declared Supreme Court this state (Ar Kalensnikoff, Cal.2d ais 1043,115 A.L.R. stipulation compromise of the minor’s was not a purporting claim, and if as the annexed order intended purpose. its Section approve was failed of it invalid and provides minor 1431 of that when a the Probate Code against damages, money, property disputed claim for or other person compromised, before third same superior compromise approved by it valid must be filing county minor wherein resides court writing. show petition of a The record does not verified filed, petition not claim and defendant does that verified no hearing had and and, out, no pointed as heretofore evidence taken. it approving purported order
Since the
necessity
application
that an
of no
was no
are
effect there
therefrom.
connec
relief
made on behalf of the
minor
accompany
argument
stipulation and the
tion with his
that the
to a
ing
approve it constituted
consent
purporting
order
pro
happening of the events
dismissal
the action
Paving
cites
stipulation,
vided for in the
Pacific
Jordan,
Vizelich,
Cal.App.
Co.
Moffitt
*8
Court,
Superior
10
175];
Cal.
It follows that Judge denying plea and Kincaid’s order tion dismiss properly bar were made. prima against make de 2. Did out case facie “Prima facie evidence is that which suffices
fendant? fact, proof particular until contradicted overcome by (Code 1833.) Proc., evidence.” “The direct other Civ. § one witness who is entitled to full credit is suffi evidence of proof fact, except perjury cient for and treason.” (Code Proc., 1844.) presumed speak A witness Civ. § (Codе 1847.) Berry Proc., Civ. Whether Miss was truth. § judge and the trial entitled to full credit was 499, (Estate Gird, determine. 157 Cal. Snowball, Am.St.Rep. Estate She testified she had and defendant four when, acts of sexual intercourse at about date ordinary nature, begotten. course of the child must have been 10th, 23d, days These 24th 30th acts occurred on the December, only 1942. This evidence alone was sufficient not prima to constitute a facie case but to sustain the verdict Reese, although by denied defendant. Utah 447 {State 270, 273].) testimony Her was corroborated defen she arrived at dant’s butler as to the fact that defendant’s evening of 23d remained there home on the December 24th, occupy until December some time in the afternоon of ing either defendant’s or a room connected therewith room bathroom, room during portion night of the 23d and at least a morning testimony the 24th. The butler that in a Berry in spring conversation had him Miss with captain army she stated that married to a she was going baby prima to have a did not detract from the facie case made appear out other evidence. It does not that she stated when she captain, had become wife of the and even if it were true December, had married she after though and even evidence were contradicted evidence, prima facie case still remained. Defendant’s admission that he had had illicit relations with Miss prior March, 1942, contradictory testimony of her
662 and her evidence to show the corroborate in fact tends to having in sexual intercourse with her had probability of his Reese, 270, 43 447 (State Utah P. December, v. 1942. [135 278].) say Civil Procedure does not 1833 of Code of
Section which suffices “until con facie is that prima and “until contradicted over or overcome” but. tradicted prima When facie evidence of evidence. come” other destroyed by its effect is not been introduced fact has proof contradictory evidence. It stands as introduction by other evidence. both contradicted and overcome until Secara, 171].) & 193 Cal. (Miller Lux Inc. v. [227 Tulsa, in Berry Miss Okla- evidence that was There was April, in and 1943. January homa, November, 1942, company of a man other than de- there was in the While she and the May, 1942. Both she fendant she had met whom question on occasions he called at man in testified that two accompanied theater, to a hotel, took her to dinner and intimation of There is no evidence or her back to the hotel. money occasions. She borrowed improper relations on those money man in Tulsa but he testified that the was from the attorney and that the at- through loaned the medium of his mortgage personal torney Berry’s on Miss obtained chattel There also property covering amount of the loan. was Angelés she was evidence that on several Los occasions apartment. company man and in his of another twice was indi- point anything in record to The briefs do not us to in the any persons or other were cate whether not though complete apartment But while she was there. even Miss satisfactory proof had been made of sexual acts occasions, Berry man it would still with on other to determine have function the exclusive been of her child virtue of his whether defendant is the father in December, act 1942. proof prove
The burden did defendant to not rest on Nevertheless, at in his that he was not the father the child. illicit relations with tempt Berry had had to show that Miss to show that other men it incumbent him ordinary when, relations had at or the time аbout (Estate nature, been conceived course the child must have Am.St.Rep. Gird, 499, Kyne 806]), Kyne, Cal.App.2d 122, 131 [100 oppor that at such time both desire there existed tunity man part on other than Berry defen Miss (Mensing Groter, improper relations. to have dant 1026, 287 P. Sonnenberg State, 124 Wis. N.W. The case o£ assertion, defendant, not lend aid to 233], cited does prima facie not established. That crim- that a case was the father the fact that defendant was inal case which beyond proved to be a reasonable the child was question facie doubt, prima of the establishment of a into the decision. case did enter unsatisfactory testimony 3. Miss so Was
and incredible as amount substantial evidence? This to nо question twenty-three is discussed in pages defendant’s *10 discrepancies brief wherein attention is drawn to between given testimony Berry deposition the Miss her and given by portions her the and at trial contradictions some testimony pointed other witnesses are out. credibility of Berry, witnesses, Miss like of all jury Having matter for the all of decide. heard the testimony, including extensive cross-examination of each wit- by opposing counsel, ness jury the made its determination Nickel, and the verdict will be (Treadwell not disturbed. 25].) With reference alleged one of the acts of sexual inter- course defendant asserts Berry’s that Miss evidence was so improbable and incredible testimony that none of her can bе may believed. It be said her con- facts related cerning that might are occasion not such as but expected, be people do things unusual per- unusual circumstances. The formances of always desirous and persons adventurous cannot Quaint though rationalized. episode may appear, jury, presumably composed experienced persons, must have merely believed her statements, and because the incident as described have unique appel- been extraordinary late court will not say that her is testimony Not- incredible. withstanding jury critique defendant’s believed Miss Berry’s evidence.
When a verdict is being unsupported by attacked as evidence power appellate of court is to a limited de- termination whether there evidence, substantial con- tradicted or uncontradicted, support that will the conclu- (Estate sion jury. Bristol, 221, 23 Cal.2d Estate Snowball, 305 [107 conclusive 4. Were the blood tests qualifications, competency, plaintiff f The
not the father designated integrity of to make blood physicians completed they questioned. After the tests were tests are not report reading made a as follows:
“Examination Chaplin, of the bloods Charles Joan Berry Berry give following and Carol Ann results. Group Type 'O MN Chaplin
Charles Berry A N Joan B N Ann Carol grouping reached as the result these blood tests Conclusion heredity, accepted the well laws of is that accordance with child, man, Chaplin, father of the cannot Charles Berry. heredity applies Ann here Carol The law B agglutinogens A appear cannot blood ‘The ’ ” parents. of a child in the blood of unless one both physicians report" at testified the trial that Two findings truly They from made. represented their the tests physician one other that by testified reason of said tests father defendant was not and could have been the report evidence plaintiff. physicians evidence, by any not controverted scientific were before all of to be with considered the other B According evidence, the A and test case. so-called M N test was discovered about 1900 and the about 1930. *11 argued type It because defendant’s blood was that were, Berry MN Miss and plaintiff and the bloods of both might plaintiff. type N, have been of defendant the father excluded him physician testified, One “We could not have test,” another, on an “We could not incomplete such him from evidence that the appears rule out.” But it the incomplete study M test of bloods and N test was an the B respective of A and test parties, and that the necessary complete report. But the blood authentic and in It tests evidence. declared conclusive was so only tests were reported in California which blood ease parentage purpose attempting used determine (Arais Kalensnikoff, 10 428 of- a child. Cal.2d [74 1043, 163].) (pp. 115 A.L.R. In that court held case the 432) test “is 431, concerning the blood by the ex- expert opinion conclusions reached because the
665 questions medical research and based involve aminer are chemistry layman entirely biology with which unfamiliar,” tests and evidence thereof (Code not so declared are not conclusive because code Proe., 1978]; further, expert testimony Civ. is to § weight given justly it appears to be entitled. Conceding immutability of the scientific law of blood- grouping, question, which we have no reason to the infallibil- ity depends upon of the results of blood tests the skill em- making ployed in reported (1) them. Errors are due to training (2) lack of serologist; the use of commercial (3) sera; (16 the failure to make L. countertest. So. Cal. 190.) Rev. testimony
When scientific
and evidence
toas
facts conflict
jury
or the trial court must determine the relative
weight
(Rolland
Porterfield,
466,
the evidence.
183 Cal.
913];
Blake,
P.
Estate
306,
[191
827,
tion an order authority that such of the court im to the effect hand, comparison such a prejudicial. or On the proper (People Richardson, expressly approved. been Hornbeck, 552, ; Cal.App. Mathews v. P. 20] Jessup, re 742, 1028, In the latter case a 6 L.R.A. showing photograph the decedent the claimant to the of picture, purpose same was introduced estate of comparison. appear It either the other does two alleged the child its father were cases whether by jury, of to stand side in front but it does not seem side greater presentation any create emotional that such a would child appeal to than if the the members reputed placed so other. father had not been close to each jurors were entitled to the ocular demonstration ordered court, be assumed that exercised their and it will imagination. powers of observation rather than of thought by counsel impressed are not with the advanced We jurors sympathy that the could have been for defendant parties juxtaposition the three in interest. by the of aroused expressed by apprehension counsel compassionate visualization of the arms of her mother caused masterpieces dispelled "Madonna Child” is ancient of kept evidence in the case which the minds character the- jurors unspiritual on the and terrestrial affairs fixed of the mother and defendant. instructing jury? Did err Defen
6. the court following complains of the instruction: "Whatever dant profession make for blood tests to de claims medical conclusive parentage, no evidence made or termine law declared Civil Pro Code of unanswerable unless so California, Code of and the said Civil cedure the State type not declare that this state Procedure this does unanswerable, therefore, expert or testimony conclusive opinions.” The instruc you bound medical are not in Arais Kalens correctly as declared tion states the law given upon nihoff, the sub supra. instructions were Other testimony thаt there is ject expert it is not claimed complained con among The instruction conflict them. detraction from evidence emphasis no tains the trial. introduced at character per week appeal the award $75
7. from Defendant’s *13 questioned plaintiff. Defendant has not the reasonableness week, per if pay any $75 of award of he the by all, amount at reason his contention that he is not plaintiff’s appealed father has from part judg- he said of the unnecessary appeal by ment. Further reference said day on plaintiff’s appeal reason decision this rendered our {post, p. 453]) P.2d that the amount is reasonable. portions judgment appealed by of thе from defendant are affirmed.
Moore, J.,P. concurred.
McCOMB, judgment J. I concurin the because by Supreme fact that this court bound decision Kalensnikoff, in Aráis v. Court 428* Cal.2d 163], believe, however, A.L.R. I was in court (See error in determination of the ease. Arais its Kalens nikoff, [Cal.App.] 1059.) 67 P.2d This in, view is concurred pointed as in opinion out Wilson, Mr. Justice by writers leading journals in a number law in the United States. Sidney Disputed Schatkin work, Paternity B. in recent Pro ceedings, (1944) page 135, at Supreme thus referred opinion in Arais Kalensnikoff, supra: Court’s “It remained, however, Supreme Court, highest judi- in State, cial tribunal to render a decision that evoked the most bitter and critical It comment. has been called ‘a ’ striking justice. miscarriage in facts that case have ‘stаnding been described as in a all niche of their own ’ ” judicial hall of fame. . possible in
It view of advances made in the medi- profession cal since decision Supreme in Court ease, present the Aráis court see fit to review the previous rule announced decision and establish rule jurisprudence subject on this prin- consonant with the uniformly recognized ciple question by without the medical profession the United Europe. States and * In adjudged the cited case the was question, although to be the father child in excluded test, blood showed that: (1) married; Defendant twice (2) The mother had named man other than defendant as the certificate; father the child’s birth (3) seventy years Defendant was age, and, according wife, to his impotent years. had been for a number of blood-groupings analogous to those disclosed discussing Wigmore, Professor com- ease the instant the evidence on Evi- menting subject in monumental work 165b, (1940), page section 1, third edition dence, volume says: great discovery of play the point into “But at this comes many years patient research (emerging after science all) viz. scientists, accepted correct but now as numerous progeny A, B, appear or will gene no particular parents. it in one This universal unless heredity the inferences to is the basis of negative truth of later.” examined adjudication of of the factual truth
Ascertainment devoutly tо be wished. controversy is a consummation *14 rely only testi- could human Time was when the courts brought new aids. The micro- mony. science But modern chemistry X-ray, electricity, psychology, psychiatry, scope, have many scientific means and instrumentalities game judicial guessing past of an institu- into revised the portraying accuracy in truth as approaching tion where, which, scientific devices pursuit actual fact learning pres- applied. The chemical tests for may be stream, Roent- application in the blood poisons ence gen ray defining bone, the use the fracture authorship of acquiring knowledge microscope exact presence prevalence of bacteria or of the documents, argue corpuscles,—all eloquently for reliance white ascertaining If do for the truth. the courts scientific devices acquiring accu- unimpeachable methods not utilize these for knowledge neglect will the em- pertinent rate facts agencies ployment available, potent which serve avoid justice. miscarriages of accepted widely bar a method
In the case at scientific determining parentage applied. Its results were definite. reject the does To new and certain old uncertain promote improvement in the administration not tend to justice.
Appellant’s petition hearing by the Supreme Court J., J., July Traynor, Sehauer, 1946. voted was denied hearing. for