Case Name: Evans v. State, ex rel. Freeman
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1905-05-09
Citations: 165 Ind. 369
Docket Number: No. 20,541
Parties: Evans v. State, ex rel. Freeman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 165
Pages: 369–377

Head Matter:
Evans v. State, ex rel. Freeman.
[No. 20,541.
Filed May 9, 1905.
Rehearing denied October 25, 1905.]
1. Bastardy. — Mayors.—Jurisdiction.—Statutes.—Under §3497 Burns 1901, §3062 R. S. 1881, mayors of cities have jurisdiction to hear and determine bastardy cases, p. 371.
2. Same.—Jurisdiction of Person.—Waiver.—A defendant in a bastardy case, failing to question the jurisdiction of the court over the person by a proper plea before pleading’to the merits, waives such question, p. 371. .
3. Evidence.—Bastardy.—Corroboration.—Corroboration of the testimony of a married woman is not necessary in her prosecution of a bastardy case. p. 371, 372.
4. Evidence.—Bastardy.—Married Woman.—Non-Access of Husband.-—-A married woman may testify in a bastardy case to the non-access of her husband, p. 371.
5. Appeal and Eeeoe. — Weighing Evidence. — The Supreme Court will not weigh conflicting evidence in a case triable by jury. p. 372.
6. Bastaedy.—Witnesses.—Competency.—Common-Law Rule.— Statutes.—The legislature has power, by statute, to abrogate the common-law rule regarding the competency of witnesses in a bastardy case. p. 375.'
7. Evidence.—Bastardy.-—Jury.—The weight of the evidence given by the prosecutrix in a bastardy case is a question for the jury. p. 375.
8. Bastaedy. — Married Woman.—Children.-—Legitimacy.—Presumption.—There is a strong, although disputable, presumption that the children of a married woman are the husband’s, and the evidence to illegitimate such children should be clear and convincing. p. 376.
9. Same.—Non-Access.—Evidence.—Where the proof shows that the prosecutrix in a bastardy case separated from her husband in May, 1901, in another state; that she had not seen him afterwards and that the child was born September 8, 1902, a finding of non-access is sustained, p. 377.
From Monroe Circuit Court; James B. Wilson, Judge.
Action by the State of Indiana, on the relation of Irene Freeman, against Pleasant Evans. From a judgment for plaintiff for $350, defendant appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court under §1337u Burns 1901, Acts 1901, p. 590.
Affirmed.
Joseph B. Henley and Jesse B. Fields, for appellant.
Robert G. Miller and Arthur M. Hadley, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hadley, C. J.
The relatrix instituted against appellant a proceeding in bastardy before the mayor of the city of Bloomington, which resulted in appellant's being bound over to the'circuit court. In the latter court appellant filed a motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction over his person and the subject-matter of the action, and for other reasons challenging the power of the mayor, as an examining court, to hear the case. The motion was overruled. There was a verdict and judgment against appellant.
His assignments here are based on the overruling of his motions to dismiss and for a new trial.
His motion to dismiss was not well taken. Section 3497 Burns 1901, §3062 E. S. 1881, in part, provides that mayors "shall have, within the limits of said city, the jurisdiction and powers of a justice of the peace in all matters, civil and criminal, arising under the laws of this State." Assuming as we may, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that the appellant was a resident of the city of Bloomington, under the above statute the mayor of the city had the authority, both as to person and subject-matter, to hear the complaint of the relatrix, and take such action thereon as is authorized in justice of the peace courts under §990 et seq. Burns 1901, §978 et seq. E. S. 1881. Besides, as to the person, appellant's failure to question the jurisdiction of the mayor by a proper plea, before pleading to the action, was a
waiver of his right to do so at a subsequent stage of the proceeding, or in the circuit court. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Power (1889), 119 Ind. 269, 271.
It is claimed that the motion for a new trial should have been granted because the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law. Hnder this head it is argued that in bastardy proceedings, the testimony of the relatrix, to prevail, must be corroborated by other evidence. Sections 504, 992 Burns 1901, §496, 980 E. S. 1881, make the relatrix in such cases a competent witness, and we know of no rule of law in this State that requires her testimony to be weighed or supported in any other manner than that of other witnesses. She is not found among the exceptions to the general rule.
The relatrix had been absent from her husband for several months before the conception complained of, and appellant contends that the court erred in permitting her, a married woman, to testify to the non-access of her husband. This point must also be ruled against him. §992, supra; Cuppy v. State, ex rel. (1865), 24 Ind. 389; Dean v. State, ex rel. (1868), 29 Ind. 483.
There was a sharp conflict in the evidence, hut the jury decided that it preponderated in favor of the appellee, and we have no power to disturb it.
Judgment affirmed.