Nunn v. State
This text of 103 N.E. 439 (Nunn v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Dora Nunn was convicted in the Marion Juvenile Court of neglecting and contributing to the neglect of her children under the age of sixteen years, the action being based upon §1645 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 59. She appeals to this court, under §1635 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 221. It is asserted that the decision of the court is contrary to law in that the facts found by the court do not sustain the judgment.
A neglected child, as defined by §1643 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 59, is “any boy under the age of sixteen (16) years or any girl under the age of seventeen (17) years, who has not proper parental care or guardianship; or who habitually begs or receives alms; or who is found living in any house of ill-fame, or with any vicious or disreputable persons; or who is employed in any saloon; or whose home by reason of neglect, cruelty or depravity on the part of its parent or parents, guardian or other person in whose care it may be, is an unfit place for such child; or whose environment is such as to warrant the state, in the interest of the child, in assuming its guardianship.” Section 1645 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 59, provides that “When any child is found to be * * * neglected as defined by sections 1 and 2 [§1643, supra] of this act, the parent, parents, person or persons [39]*39having the care, custody or control of such child, or any other person, who is or are responsible for, or who by any act or omission of duty encourages, counsels or contributes to the neglect of such child, or who, by reason of wilful neglect of any duty owing by said parent or parents, person or persons to such child, is or are responsible for its neglect, ’ ’ shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction in a juvenile court, shall be punished in a manner specified.
These facts speak for themselves and conclusively show, that appellant’s children were neglected, and that she contributed to their neglect, within the meaning of the statute. She was not giving them proper parental care, for by her depravity their home became an unfit place for them, and they were virtually living in a house of ill-fame, with disreputable persons.
Judgment affirmed.
Note.—Reported in, 103 N. E. 439. See, also, 22 Cyc. Anno. 525; 29 Cyc. 1070.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
103 N.E. 439, 55 Ind. App. 37, 1913 Ind. App. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunn-v-state-indctapp-1913.