Adams v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Adams v. District of Columbia

109 A.2d 140, 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 196

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 1954

Docket1548

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 109 A.2d 140 (Adams v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. District of Columbia, 109 A.2d 140, 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 196 (D.C. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOD, Associate Judge.

The Juvenile Court, sitting without a jury, found appellant to be the father of an illegitimate child and ordered him to make payments for its support. Appellant argues that it was error to find him to be the *141 father of the child. The finding rested primarily on fhe testimony of the complainant and her testimony was not entirely consistent. On the other hand, there were inconsistencies in appellant’s testimony and that of his witnesses. It was for the trial court to decide the truth of the matter, and we cannot rule as a matter of law that it was error to believe complainant and disbelieve appellant.

It is also argued that it was error not to grant a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. In Potts v. Catterton, D.C.Mun.App., 82 A.2d 133, we held, in accordance with established authority, that one of the requirements of such a motion is that the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching. The evidence here relied on clearly falls within that category.

In his motion for new trial, appellant requested the court to order blood tests of himself, the complainant, and the child. The court has authority, in its discretion, to order such tests, 1 but we see no abuse of discretion in denying appellant’s request which was not made until after trial and finding.

Affirmed.

1

. Code 1951, Supp. II, 11-956.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOOD, Associate Judge.

The Juvenile Court, sitting without a jury, found appellant to be the father of an illegitimate child and ordered him to make payments for its support. Appellant argues that it was error to find him to be the *141 father of the child. The finding rested primarily on fhe testimony of the complainant and her testimony was not entirely consistent. On the other hand, there were inconsistencies in appellant’s testimony and that of his witnesses. It was for the trial court to decide the truth of the matter, and we cannot rule as a matter of law that it was error to believe complainant and disbelieve appellant.

It is also argued that it was error not to grant a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. In Potts v. Catterton, D.C.Mun.App., 82 A.2d 133, we held, in accordance with established authority, that one of the requirements of such a motion is that the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching. The evidence here relied on clearly falls within that category.

In his motion for new trial, appellant requested the court to order blood tests of himself, the complainant, and the child. The court has authority, in its discretion, to order such tests, 1 but we see no abuse of discretion in denying appellant’s request which was not made until after trial and finding.

Affirmed.

1

. Code 1951, Supp. II, 11-956.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.2d 140, 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-district-of-columbia-dc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack