Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/336/336mass561.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:16:18+00:00

Document:
LOIS M. PHILLIPS vs. CHESTER S. PHILLIPS.
Court of Bristol following its initiation in Superior Court, Cumberland County, Maine.
Fred M. Thomas & George M. Thomas, for the respondent, submitted a brief.
WILKINS, C.J. This proceeding under the uniform reciprocal enforcement of support act, G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 273A, as appearing in St. 1954, c. 556, Section 1, was initiated in the Superior Court, Cumberland County, Maine, by the State of Maine department of health and welfare, on behalf of the divorced wife of the respondent to seek support for their four minor children. The parties were divorced in Maine, where the respondent was ordered to pay $15 weekly for the support of his children. The petitioner still lives in that State, and the respondent lives in New Bedford.
The District Court judge found that a duty existed to support the children, and ordered the respondent to pay $15 weekly. The Appellate Division dismissed a report, and the respondent appealed.
In the District Court the only evidence came from the respondent, who was present under summons and was ordered to testify by the judge. The respondent has remarried and has one child by his second marriage. He earns between $55 and $65 a week, and has not been complying with the Maine order of support.
The respondent in his brief makes several suggestions by way of argument. These scarcely meet the requirement of Rule 13 of the Rules for the Regulation of Practice before the Full Court (1952), 328 Mass. 698 . Boston v. Dolan, 298 Mass. 346 , 355-356. Kaneb v. Kaneb, 334 Mass. 525 , 526-527. Galotti v. United States Trust Co. 335 Mass. 496 , 503.
duty to support dependents in another State, and the District Court judge had power to make a valid order prospective in operation based upon the respondent's duty to support his children in Maine. Keene v. Toth, 335 Mass. 591 , 593. By Section 3 of the act, the duty of support and the laws relative to enforcement "bind the obligor regardless of the presence or residence of the obligee."
The judge denied the respondent's first request for a ruling: "The burden is on the petitioner to prove the allegations in her petition." He granted the fourth request: "The pleadings in this case are not evidence." From the manner in which the case has been presented and from the absence of any separate discussion of this request in the opinion of the Appellate Division, it seems probable that the real ground of the respondent's complaint was similar to those we have already considered, namely, that the proceedings were criminal; and that all the evidence came from the respondent and none from the petitioner.
namely, that of the respondent. The case could be proved out of the respondent's own mouth. Keene v. Toth, 335 Mass. 591 . Ivey v. Ayers, 301 S. W. (2d) 790, 796 (Mo.).
[Note 1] These requests were to the effect that the respondent had the right to "confront" and cross-examine the petitioner. -- REPORTER.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.