Stone v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Stone v. District of Columbia

127 A.2d 841, 1956 D.C. App. LEXIS 257

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 1956

DocketNo. 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.2d 841 (Stone 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

Stone v. District of Columbia, 127 A.2d 841, 1956 D.C. App. LEXIS 257 (D.C. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

ROVER, Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged in the Juvenile Court with being the father of a child born out of wedlock, pursuant to the provisions of Code 1951, Supp. IV, § 11-951 et seq.; after a trial before the judge he was, found to be the child’s father and a judgment was entered ordering him to pay for its support and, as well, a hospitalization bill incident to its birth; the appeal is from this judgment.

While. appellant assigns a number of errors, the majority involve but one question, namely, whether the evidence justified the finding and judgment. We are convinced that it did.

A careful study of the record convinces us that the court was justified in arriving at its decision; we find there was substantial evidence tending to prove all of the essential elements of the charge.

As we said in Smith v. District of Columbia:¹ “This court is bound by the rule that where, there is substantial evidence to support a finding we have no right to reverse.”

The remaining assignments of error find no support in the record and as we said in Ellison v. United States: 2 “ * * * [W]e cannot decide appeals on the basis of facts stated in briefs unless such facts also appear in records brought up from the trial court.”

Affinned.

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

ROVER, Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged in the Juvenile Court with being the father of a child born out of wedlock, pursuant to the provisions of Code 1951, Supp. IV, § 11-951 et seq.; after a trial before the judge he was, found to be the child’s father and a judgment was entered ordering him to pay for its support and, as well, a hospitalization bill incident to its birth; the appeal is from this judgment.

While. appellant assigns a number of errors, the majority involve but one question, namely, whether the evidence justified the finding and judgment. We are convinced that it did.

A careful study of the record convinces us that the court was justified in arriving at its decision; we find there was substantial evidence tending to prove all of the essential elements of the charge.

As we said in Smith v. District of Columbia:¹ “This court is bound by the rule that where, there is substantial evidence to support a finding we have no right to reverse.”

The remaining assignments of error find no support in the record and as we said in Ellison v. United States: 2 “ * * * [W]e cannot decide appeals on the basis of facts stated in briefs unless such facts also appear in records brought up from the trial court.”

Affinned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.2d 841, 1956 D.C. App. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-district-of-columbia-dc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack