Earich v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Earich v. State

169 N.E. 583, 33 Ohio App. 364, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 198, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 576

DecidedFebruary 21, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 169 N.E. 583 (Earich v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earich v. State, 169 N.E. 583, 33 Ohio App. 364, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 198, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 576 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BLOSSER, J.

This proceeding in error is submitted to this court on the theory that if the decision of this court in the case of Hendrix v State, 22 Ohio App. 255 is applicable that the judgment .of the juvenile court should be affirmed. We have been unable to find any reported case where the facts are parallel with those in the case at bar. No cases hold that the mere rendition of a judgment in a bastardy proceeding and the payment of money alone to the mother is a bar to a prosecution for failure to provide. In the Hendrix case, supra, the court found that the defendant did not fully carry out and comply with the terms of the compromise, and had never delivered to the prosecutrix in the bastardy proceeding the personal property which he agreed to deliver. In the case of McKelvy v State, 87 Ohio St. 1, which was prior to the amendment of Section 12114 G. C., the second paragraph of the syllabus holds that where a bastardy proceeding has been compromised under Section 12,114 G. C. ,and all of the provisions of the compromise have been complied with and carried out by the accused it constitutes a complete bar to a charge of failure to support the. illegitimate child. Under the compromise effected in the McKelvy case there was p,aid the mother three hundred and fifty dollars in full satisfaction of all claims, together with costs, and also a bond was given in the sum of two hundred dollars for the maintenance of the child with sufficient sureties to the approval of the justice.

The plaintiff in error not having given bond for the support of the child in the bastardy proceeeding and having admitted his failure to provide as charged in the complaint, which is being prosecuted under favor of Section 12114. G. C. as now amended, the judgment in the bastardy proceeding' is no defense to the offense charged against him.

Middleton, PJ, and Mauck, J, concur.

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

BLOSSER, J.

This proceeding in error is submitted to this court on the theory that if the decision of this court in the case of Hendrix v State, 22 Ohio App. 255 is applicable that the judgment .of the juvenile court should be affirmed. We have been unable to find any reported case where the facts are parallel with those in the case at bar. No cases hold that the mere rendition of a judgment in a bastardy proceeding and the payment of money alone to the mother is a bar to a prosecution for failure to provide. In the Hendrix case, supra, the court found that the defendant did not fully carry out and comply with the terms of the compromise, and had never delivered to the prosecutrix in the bastardy proceeding the personal property which he agreed to deliver. In the case of McKelvy v State, 87 Ohio St. 1, which was prior to the amendment of Section 12114 G. C., the second paragraph of the syllabus holds that where a bastardy proceeding has been compromised under Section 12,114 G. C. ,and all of the provisions of the compromise have been complied with and carried out by the accused it constitutes a complete bar to a charge of failure to support the. illegitimate child. Under the compromise effected in the McKelvy case there was p,aid the mother three hundred and fifty dollars in full satisfaction of all claims, together with costs, and also a bond was given in the sum of two hundred dollars for the maintenance of the child with sufficient sureties to the approval of the justice.

The plaintiff in error not having given bond for the support of the child in the bastardy proceeeding and having admitted his failure to provide as charged in the complaint, which is being prosecuted under favor of Section 12114. G. C. as now amended, the judgment in the bastardy proceeding' is no defense to the offense charged against him.

Middleton, PJ, and Mauck, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 N.E. 583, 33 Ohio App. 364, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 198, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earich-v-state-ohioctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack