Sweetman v. State

New York Court of General Session of the Peace

Sweetman v. State

34 Del. 329, 4 W.W. Harr. 329

CourtNew York Court of General Session of the Peace

DecidedSeptember 26, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Del. 329 (Sweetman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sweetman v. State, 34 Del. 329, 4 W.W. Harr. 329 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Rice, J.,

in directing the jury to find a verdict of not guilty, as requested by the defendant, said:

The motion, on behalf of Sweetman, is based on the fact that the State has failed to prove venue as set forth in Section 3042, of the Revised Code of 1915, which provides:

“An offense under Sections 2 to 14, inclusive, of this Chapter, shall be held to have been committed in any County in which such wife, child or children may be at the time such complaint is made. It shall be the duty of the State, in any case in which application is properly made by the officers responsible for the execution of the law, to provide the funds necessary for the extraditing of any person charged with an offense under said sections who has gone to another State.”

There is no evidence before the court to prove that the children, for whose support the defendant is charged with the failure to provide, were in this County at the time the complaint was made in the court below. In fact, the Attorney-General admitted that he could not prove that they resided here at that time and it clearly appears from the evidence that they then resided in Pennsylvania.

[331]*331The statutory words “shall be held to have been committed in any County in which such wife, child or children may be at the time such complaint was made” cannot be construed to include persons who are only transients or mere visitors in this state at the time such complaint was made; nor was it the intention of the legislature to exclude from the benefits of the statute, a wife, or child, or children who, while actually residing in this state, were only temporarily absent at the time of the complaint.

However, the words of the statute cannot readily be construed to include persons who were neither in the state when the complaint was made, nor residing here at the time, which appears to be the situation in the present case.

For the reasons stated, you are directed to return a verdict of not guilty.¹

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

Rice, J.,

in directing the jury to find a verdict of not guilty, as requested by the defendant, said:

The motion, on behalf of Sweetman, is based on the fact that the State has failed to prove venue as set forth in Section 3042, of the Revised Code of 1915, which provides:

“An offense under Sections 2 to 14, inclusive, of this Chapter, shall be held to have been committed in any County in which such wife, child or children may be at the time such complaint is made. It shall be the duty of the State, in any case in which application is properly made by the officers responsible for the execution of the law, to provide the funds necessary for the extraditing of any person charged with an offense under said sections who has gone to another State.”

There is no evidence before the court to prove that the children, for whose support the defendant is charged with the failure to provide, were in this County at the time the complaint was made in the court below. In fact, the Attorney-General admitted that he could not prove that they resided here at that time and it clearly appears from the evidence that they then resided in Pennsylvania.

[331]*331The statutory words “shall be held to have been committed in any County in which such wife, child or children may be at the time such complaint was made” cannot be construed to include persons who are only transients or mere visitors in this state at the time such complaint was made; nor was it the intention of the legislature to exclude from the benefits of the statute, a wife, or child, or children who, while actually residing in this state, were only temporarily absent at the time of the complaint.

However, the words of the statute cannot readily be construed to include persons who were neither in the state when the complaint was made, nor residing here at the time, which appears to be the situation in the present case.

For the reasons stated, you are directed to return a verdict of not guilty.¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Del. 329, 4 W.W. Harr. 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweetman-v-state-nygensess-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack