167 P. 900 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1917
The defendant was charged by information with violation of section
We conceive of no reason for discussing at length the points argued in the briefs. We have read them carefully together with the record of the trial, and all we feel required to say is that the evidence, contrary to the appellant's contention, sustains the finding implied from the verdict that the residence of the mother — to whom the custody of the minor was awarded in a divorce proceeding between her and the defendant — was in the county of Marin. She testified that she lived there "off and on," meaning, as was developed later in the trial, that as she earned her living as a nurse she was sometimes out of the county at work in that capacity; but she finally testified that she lived in that county; that her residence was there.
The evidence also abundantly shows that the defendant was able to support the minor; that no one voluntarily undertook to relieve him or the mother of any obligation to support the child, and — if it is important — that the mother was without sufficient means to support it at the time the offense is charged.
The judgment is affirmed.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on October 11, 1917. *426