This is a paternity action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to establish the defendant as the father of a child born out of wedlock to plaintiff’s daughter, Patricia Stauffer, who was 17 years of age at the time of trial. The defendant at the time of trial was a high school senior 17 years of age.
A jury was waived and the case was tried to the district court оn October 7, 1966. Patricia testified that thé defendant had sexual relations with her on three different occasions in 1965, the first time being May 8 and the last being May 15. She denied relations with anyone else during 1965. Defendant admitted having such rеlations on three different- occasions but fixes the date of his first aсcess as June 10, 1965, or more than 1 week after the close of school. Patricia in an earlier deposition had fixed the first occаsion as June 2, or the day before the closing of school. She also testified that she did not consult her doctor until August, and that he fixed her due date as March 25, 1966. The doctor’s testimony fixes her first visit as August 31, 1965.
The baby weighed 7 pounds 9% ounces at birth. Patricia’s doctor testified that the baby was born on Februаry 13, 1966; was a full-term baby; and that the normal or standard period of gestatiоn is 9 calendar months, or 10 lunar months, or 280 days. In Koepke v. Delfs,
Plaintiff and her daughter first communicated with the defendant and his family about thе situation on November 10, 1965. Defendant and his parents testified to convеrsations at that time which would raise considerable question herein. Thеse conversations are denied by the plaintiff and her daughter. Bloоd tests were taken but were inconclusive. The trial court found for the defendant and the plaintiff has perfected this appeal.
Plaintiff sets out three assignments of error, but the motion for a new trial filed by the plaintiff alleged only two assignments: (1) That the judgment is contrary to the evidencе; and (2) that the judgment is contrary to the law.
The law is well established in this jurisdiction that alleged errors of the trial court in an action at law which aré nоt referred to in a motion for new trial will not be considered in this court. Sсhwank v. County of Platte,
Is the judgment contrary to the evidenсe or to the law? No purpose will be served herein by further detailing the. evidence. Suffice it to say that it is sufficient to sustain a judgment for the defendant. This was a law action tried to the court without a jury. The credibility of witnеsses, is
a.
matter for the trial court. It is not within the province of this court in a law action to resolve conflicts in or to weigh evidence. If there is a conflict in the evidence this court will review the judgment rendered, will presume that controverted facts were decided by the trial court in favor of the successful party, and the findings will not be disturbed unless clearly wrоng.
*132
Dunbier v. Stanton,
We cannot say that the action of the trial court herein was clearly wrong. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.