Chandler v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Chandler v. State

115 So. 385, 22 Ala. App. 321, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 26

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 1928

Docket7 Div. 448.

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 385 (Chandler v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chandler v. State, 115 So. 385, 22 Ala. App. 321, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 26 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

This is what is known as a “bastardy proceeding.” Appellant was accused, tried, and found guilty of being the father of an illegitimate child of one Myrtle Goss, an unmarried woman.

We do not consider, as being not of importance, questions raised for the first time on appeal as to the sufficiency of the affidavit before the justice of the peace, where the prosecution was begun.

The sole material litigated issue in the case was whether or not appellant was the father of the child in question. In the main, the trial was correctly conducted.

Upon the examination of one Dr. White, a witness called by the state in rebuttal of defendant’s testimony, the witness was allowed to describe, over appellant’s timely objection, a peculiarity or deformity appearing on the person of one Pink Chandler, the grandfather of appellant. The same witness was allowed, also over appellant’s timely objection, to state that, while he knew of no medical authorities that taught that such deformities were transmissible by heredity, yet he knew of none that taught that they were not.

A tendency of the evidence was that the child in this case boré a similar mark. In the admission of this testimony of Dr. White, there was error that we think should cause the judgment to be reversed and the cause remanded. Clearly the last-mentioned testimony tended to prove nothing, and was altogether incompetent or irrelevant, and its admission was, in our. opinion, clearly prejudicial.

Other questions, since they will not likely arise on another trial, will not be considered.

Reversed and remanded.

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

RICE, J.

This is what is known as a “bastardy proceeding.” Appellant was accused, tried, and found guilty of being the father of an illegitimate child of one Myrtle Goss, an unmarried woman.

We do not consider, as being not of importance, questions raised for the first time on appeal as to the sufficiency of the affidavit before the justice of the peace, where the prosecution was begun.

The sole material litigated issue in the case was whether or not appellant was the father of the child in question. In the main, the trial was correctly conducted.

Upon the examination of one Dr. White, a witness called by the state in rebuttal of defendant’s testimony, the witness was allowed to describe, over appellant’s timely objection, a peculiarity or deformity appearing on the person of one Pink Chandler, the grandfather of appellant. The same witness was allowed, also over appellant’s timely objection, to state that, while he knew of no medical authorities that taught that such deformities were transmissible by heredity, yet he knew of none that taught that they were not.

A tendency of the evidence was that the child in this case boré a similar mark. In the admission of this testimony of Dr. White, there was error that we think should cause the judgment to be reversed and the cause remanded. Clearly the last-mentioned testimony tended to prove nothing, and was altogether incompetent or irrelevant, and its admission was, in our. opinion, clearly prejudicial.

Other questions, since they will not likely arise on another trial, will not be considered.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 385, 22 Ala. App. 321, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-state-alactapp-1928.