192 Ind. 451 | Ind. | 1922
This action against appellant is for violation of §2635c Burns' Supp. 1921, Acts 1915 p. 139, §1.
The facts of the case as disclosed by the evidence most favorable to the finding of the court are: that appellant was married in October, 1915, since which time five children had been born to appellant and his wife. One of these children died in infancy, and, of the four living,
This action is based upon an affidavit in two paragraphs, the first of which charged appellant with failure to support his children, and the second with failing to support his wife and children.
The case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, which resulted in a finding that the defendant was guilty as charged in the first count of the affidavit. The error relied upon to reverse the judgment is the overruling of the motion for a new trial, for the reasons that the finding of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.
By the facts shown above as taken from the evidence, it will be seen that appellant had not provided for his children for a period of nearly five months previous to the bringing of this action, except the payment of $1 to his wife at Christmas time, although one of the children was an infant of but a few months of age, and all the others were under six years of age; and that appellant was physically able-bodied and able to work. Although not recited as facts in the foregoing statement, it is disclosed by the evidence of appellant himself that he was able to work; that he lived with his brother doing chores for his board, and was without any other employment whatever; and that he had been employed from time to time, but not at one place for any length of time; that he was able to earn, and had earned in a factory $4.50 a day.
Appellant maintains that he had secured a position to manage and operate a farm for a period of a year at a salary of fifty dollars per month, but that it would be necessary for him to live on the farm and occupy the farm house with his family. Based upon this claim he insists that he is not under legal obligation to furnish support for his children, in that his wife refused to go
The trial court found against appellant on this very proposition. A review of the evidence discloses that appellant had not secured such position, and also, that he had not provided, or even offered to provide, furniture for a home there or anywhere, or food or clothing for his children. Appellant’s case is markedly distinguished from the case cited by him.
The evidence most favorable to appellee is amply sufficient to support the finding. Where there is any evidence to support a finding or verdict, the judgment will not be reversed upon. appeal. Kistler v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 149, 129 N. E. 625.
It is therefore held that the finding is sustained by sufficient evidence, and that it is not contrary to law.
Affirmed.