STATE Ex DISCUS v. VANDORN, 56 Ohio App. 82

io4 motion for Had been no a directed interposed herein, and were the verdict order the one concerning the motion for a that, trial, our new the ab- sence of a claim of miscon- of the duct court, or abuse of discretion concerning the circumstances under OPINION determined, motion heard and was order, here, standing GUERNSEY, By an in the alone, J. questions ap- is not a final order from which This is an of law peal may of the Common be taken. from a Bros., Inc., Jacoby Ohio, County, 22 Levin However, Abs 353. v Crawford rendered §12123, GC, pursuant provisions of inasmuch as we have entertain- jurisdiction adjudging we have ex- the defendant Herbert Van Dorn ed record, the entire find no father of the bastard amined we ruling upon by complainant Bertha in the court’s the motions delivered Dis- child 18, 1935, ordering direct, May him to nor the motion for a new cus $174.50, complainant pay to the the sum of Judgment being preg- her child, together nancy delivery of said DOYLE, JJ, judgment. concur in interest from date WASHBURN May judgment. Bertha On Discus, woman, unmarried her justice peace affidavit before a Ohio, County, Crawford §12110,GC, charging that she sions was pregnant defendant issued for the ar- DISCUS VANDORN such child. Warrant was STATE ex v defendant, and on the same rest day complainant hospital Appeals, to a Co went 3rd Crawford morning the next delivered a still- was March born child. Decided Tire defendant bound over was subsequently Common Pleas Court and by the Common dismissed justice Court for the reason that jurisdiction. peace had lost day February, the 8th complainant Bertha Discus filed another complaint against written defendant justice the same figures complaint is in the words and fol- lowing, to-wit: me, Monnett, “Before W. L. one justices Crawford Ohio, County, appeared personally Bertha Discus, county resident said within complaint oath she is an and that on or woman about unmarried the May, 1935, she was deliver- 18th child, although the same of a ed still-born, then and there Dorn Van said Herbert child.” issued for Warrant was Sears, arrested Bucyrus, appellee. said D.

J. T. B. brought justice’s Mateer, Gilead, appellant. court. And Mt. warrant, any sheriff or con- directed to February Bertha 17th commanding state, him to stable under oath examined Discus been pursue by law, such accused and arrest the de- said therein, bring any county him forth- over bound said the of to of before such Court Crawford with the Common complaint.” recog- County into answer such enter to a and ordered appearance before said nizance his for has, however, change been a in to There and tried submitted court. The case was by relating provisions of the statutes to the jury on in Common Court a the judgment bastardy June, jury in entered the to be the and the 11th found of proceedings, guilty charged of the time the as between de in the appellant by complaint. cisions relied on the and the the Motion for new judgment overruled, judgment the of in en- time the bar..1 at been filed and by appellant1 judgment on the Both cases relied tered on the verdict which §5626, Statutes, Revised GC, were decided when is from which this made. designated §12123 in effect later as a of The makes number as- §12123, prior signments amendment of and GC, to the in his of brief errors, error but page specifies only in 110 Ohio Laws at 296. The in this two to- court part pertinent to, judgment of the section referred 1. the and are wit: contrary That verdict law; of at the time- the decisions said cases re the verdict to 2. That and by rendered, against weight appellant were reads the lied are follows: as evidence. statute, assignments Under the two the “If, counsel, person by in or the accused ones mentioned will the considered be in confesses in court that the accusation is and be discussed the order true, or, jury guilty, find him he mentioned. adjudged reputed appellant’s shall be the of father contention the The under child, charged assignment mentioned, the bastard and stand first with of above complain- is that its in such sum as the maintenance the child born (that orders, prosecu- foetus), payment is, of costs of with ant was that a dead stillborn require reputed bastardy the The tion. court shall not could be perform give security provisions father order,” to to maintained under the such statute, the court the in the case is for that reason without amended, page 296, authority As at warrant or in law. Ohio Laws support In in effect contention and at the time the cause of he relies action Bucy, arose, the case at in judgment §12123,GC, case of Patterson v Reprint, Ohio De bar had and rendered, pertinent the cisions in Volume it which putative is held follows: that the father of reads as a still prosecution born bastard not to liable “If, counsel, by person by bastardy the in mother under the the act of accused Nelson, the Helfer v in court that the case of 7 O. confesses accusation Reports true, or, page 263, jury guilty, if at find him C.C. the he decided the adjudged reputed lag's, Circuit shall be in the this district about it complain the that a bastard the court shall was held where there- bastardy adjudge pay complain- ant that he act was delivered of embryo a dead such foetus or sum as the court find child twelve ant neces- neces- weeks sary concepion, recovery support, after no maintenance could be had sary by pregnancy and the action caused abated. childbirth, together complaints bar, prose- in the costs of with at complaints thereupon require well as in cution. the the The court shall cases relied appellant, give security are based the father to to the per-j §5614, Statutes, sions of §12X10, form Revised such order.” now GC, which as follows: reads provisions It the will be under noted that §12123,GC, §5627, Statutes, “When an unmarried woman pregnant who Revised has been delivered of or is in the amendment Laws with a child, remedy provided bastard writing makes a in at for the whole oath, under object a under to obtained the and the be the remedy with the such maintenance child, thereupon remedy pro- such shall child, issue his the whole while IOÓ object the case at bar is The affidavit on which to obtained vided under such conformity remedy provisions in based is therefore provisions under statutes, §12123, and the verdict amended in 110 Ohio Laws of 296, GC as jury compel and the entered on the defendant to to to conformity such verdict are such sum as the court the may to law. to find assignment Upon verdict maintenance and against weight childbirth, are of to unnecessary deem it prosecution. it evidence we And will be noted length, simply by appel- but the evidence at relied on discuss that lant, the decisions inspection particularly that we find decision in state exceptions is com- the bill case of Heifer v the con- adopted petent, and credible evidence statute substantial struction of the based goes remedy all the essen- on the fact provided then tial elements obtained to be support judg- the verdict and conflict in the and while there is a child. ment page 761, the conflict such that reason- at evidence In 3 Case Law it might honestly vary in their con- men stated: able clusions as to whether whole record sup- bastardy proceedings is or is not the verdict and ported by “In in- the case pending pregnancy situa- the evidence and this stituted plainant com- question . in re- tion this court warranted has arisen whether versing proceedings for such er- claimed if the child is stillborn the question 2 O. J. abate. this the authorities ror. particulars speci- Finding largely varying no error are in conflict due provisions brief, the Com- in the fied If the statutes. ob- sole ject mon of the statute the maintenance of proceedings the child the abate.” CROW, J, concurs. KLINGER, J, dissents, being proposition On the contained in the last decision in 7 C.C. sentence of this statement a citation is (N.S.) applicable facts a note L.R.A. incorporates this should reason note referred to to law. be reversed as Heifer v as well as cases supporting prop- from other states as this osition. proposition corollary A contained et v SHAW quotation in the last sentence of the above & et AL MOVING STORAGE CO NAISH from 3 Case Law sole of the statute is not the main- .Appeals, 1st Hamilton Co tenance of the child the do not abate. Decided Oct No 5142. Applying this rule we hold that as under they the statutes of Ohio now exist the compelling relates to the de sum find to be necessary .and

expenses, and child birth, prosecu tion, right of action under the statutes irrespective exists of whether the child alive, expenses stillborn payment born as the for in the which is judgnjent, such character that are of either event and it incurred in would be purpose statutes of these the intent and paid by the that such father,

Case Details

Case Name: STATE Ex DISCUS v. VANDORN

Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals

Date Published: Mar 24, 1937

Citations: 56 Ohio App. 82; 10 N.E.2d 14; 8 Ohio Op. 393; 24 Ohio Law. Abs. 104; 1937 Ohio App. LEXIS 348

Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.