Ettin v. ROBINSON ET UX

349 P.2d 1097, 221 Or. 193, 1960 Ore. LEXIS 414
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 9, 1960
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 349 P.2d 1097 (Ettin v. ROBINSON ET UX) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ettin v. ROBINSON ET UX, 349 P.2d 1097, 221 Or. 193, 1960 Ore. LEXIS 414 (Or. 1960).

Opinions

O’CONNELL, J.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding brought by Morris Ettin to obtain the custody of Anna Marie Ettin, a minor child, who was and now is in the custody of the defendants who are the child’s maternal aunt and uncle. Defendants have appealed from a decree of the trial court declaring the plaintiff is the natural father of Anna Marie and directing the defendants to deliver the custody of the child to plaintiff forthwith.

The defendants perfected their appeal and thereupon obtained an order of this court allowing them to retain custody of the child pending the appeal. The principal question in the case is the paternity of the child, the plaintiff contending that he is the father and the defendants contending that Ralph Titus is the father.

The facts relating to paternity are as follows. Ralph Titus and Lela Mae Titus were married in Casper, Wyoming on May 7, 1952. Soon thereafter they separated. In the latter part of 1953 plaintiff, who was separated from his wife, met Lela Mae in Las Vegas, Nevada when she was in the company of a man named Anderson. Lela Mae lived with plaintiff in his apartment for a short period of time and then left to return to the home of her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Rogers in Corvallis, Oregon in December, 1953. In January or February of 1954 she returned to Las Vegas, where she again lived with plaintiff and where [195]*195she and plaintiff held themselves ont as husband and wife.

The child was bom on January 6, 1955. On December 6,1955, Lela Mae secured a decree of divorce from Ralph Titus and plaintiff secured a decree of divorce from his wife, Cecil Ettin. On the following day plaintiff and Lela Mae intermarried. Lela Mae died in Corvallis, Oregon on April 21, 1956. The child was then in the custody of Lela Mae’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. Rogers. In July, 1956 the defendants took the child into their home where she has remained since that time. The defendants instituted adoption proceedings in January, 1957 and shortly thereafter plaintiff brought the present suit.

The plaintiff attempts to prove that Ralph Titus did not have access to Lela Mae during the period when the child was conceived, which, according to medical testimony, was sometime in mid-April, 1954. The defendants claim that in April, 1954 Lela Mae visited Ralph Titus in Roswell, New Mexico and there lived with him as husband and wife for a week or two. The evidence on this crucial point is in conflict. Ralph Titus was called as a witness for the defendants. He testified that he cohabited with Lela during the period beginning in March, 1954 and ending in July, 1954. According to his testimony she first visited him in Roswell, New Mexico in March “for a little while” and again in the middle part of April for about a week. Then, he claims, they met for a couple of days in the latter part of June, 1954 at Hobbs, New Mexico and on about July 1,1954 they went to Carlsbad, New Mexico, where they stayed for several days. He dates their visit at Carlsbad by recalling that they went swimming there on July 4, 1954. He relates Lela Mae’s visit at Roswell in March or April to a photograph of the [196]*196two of them standing at the foot of a rocky precipice which he claimed was taken at Roswell at that time. In a letter written hy him to Lela Mae on July 18, 1954 he referred to the same photograph as one “where we are standing by the rocks on Casper Mts.” Casper mountain is in Wyoming.

This is but one of several instances in which Ralph Titus’ testimony is obviously false. Since his testimony is untrustworthy,- we shall give it no probative force in support of his claim that Lela Mae visited him during the period in question. However, evidence was offered, which if received would establish that Lela Mae had visited Ralph.Titus in April, 1954. The deposition of Mildred Hood, the owner and manager of the apartment house in Roswell, New Mexico, in which Ralph Titus lived from February 7, 1954 to May 3, 1954 was received under the rule after an objection to its admission was sustained. She testified that Ralph Titus introduced to her a woman as Lela Mae Titus, representing that she was his wife. From photographs of Lela Mae found in Ralph Titus’ apartment after he had left, Mildred Hood identified Lela Mae as the woman to whom reference was made. Similar testimony was elicited by way of deposition from a cleaning woman who worked in the apartment house. These depositions were offered after the case had been continued. .Plaintiff’s counsel objected to their admission on the ground that they were immaterial; not within the purpose for which the continuation was allowed, and because they were deficient in the form in which they were taken. They were rejected by the trial judge without a statement of the grounds for exclusion.

We need not pass upon the question of admissibility of the depositions because we are of the opinion that [197]*197the testimony so taken, even if received, would not be sufficient to overcome the evidence that Lela Mae did not visit Ralph during the period from March, 1954 to August, 1954. That evidence is for the most part found in the letters written by Ralph to Lela Mae in June and July of 1954. These letters are clear and convincing proof that Ralph Titus did not see Lela Mae until well after the date of conception. One of these letters is dated June 28, 1954, and when introduced into evidence it was contained in an envelope postmarked Carlsbad, New Mexico, July 4, 1954. The letter read as follows:

“June 28-54
“107 1/2 N. Elm.
“Carlsbad N Mexico
“Dearest Lela
“I am still trying kid—Maybe you have found another by this time.
“I am still thinking of you. Wish I could stop.
“I met some one over a year ago that begged me to wake up. I have already mentioned her name to you in letters.
“Now after its too late I have began to realize she may have been right.
“I havent written to her since last November 1953 You think I did away with your things.
“You also think all I do is tell you things that are untrue. You believe every one else.
“I rec. a wire when I was still in Casper from you or some one to send the trunks to an address in Arizona. I paid for the freight, that is Lenore loaned me the money. She & I took them to the depot & sent them to you.
“I am getting pretty much fed up with this kind of living. If you are going to be my wife, & help make a home let me see you do your part now.
[198]*198“No man ever loved a woman as I have you, & still do, but maybe I am crazy to keep on hoping There is no use to destroy our lives in this way.
“Please be lady enough to tell me you are through & let me live like any other man that wants to do the right thing.
“I have given a lot more than I have rec. Now I am through. You either let me free to enjoy my life or come to me & make a respectfully [sic] home for us. I have forgotten all the past. Lela please. We are both human beings, not machines.

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

Related

Reflow v. Reflow
545 P.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1976)
Sparks v. Phelps
540 P.2d 397 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1975)
Parmele v. Mathews
379 P.2d 868 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1963)
Ettin v. ROBINSON ET UX
349 P.2d 1097 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
349 P.2d 1097, 221 Or. 193, 1960 Ore. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ettin-v-robinson-et-ux-or-1960.