Case Name: WAGGONER v. STATE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925-02-02
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 181
Docket Number: No. 1492
Parties: WAGGONER v. STATE
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 181–181

Head Matter:
No. 282
WAGGONER v. STATE
Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.
No. 1492.
Decided Feb. 2, 1925
848. NON-SUPPORT OF CHILD—When paternity of child is denied, to prove such a defense, it must be shown that husband had no power of procreation, or there was impos-siblity of access.
Attorneys—Ira R Cole for Waggoner; Roy R Stuart, Pros. Atty., for State; both of Toledo.

Opinion:
RICHARDS, J.
Vern Waggoner was convicted in common pleas for non-support of a child aged one month. The evidence disclosed that the parties were married in August, 1922. The child was born Oct. 1923; the mother testified that Waggoner is the father of the child. "
Waggoner denies that he is the father and denies he had sexual intercourse with his wife in Jan. 1923, when she claimed the child was begotten. There was at that time an action for divorce pending between them, brought by the wife.
The State contends that when they separated Waggoner lived only two doors from his wife so that access was possible.
The Court of Appeals held:
1. A child born or begotten in lawful wedlock is presumed to be legitimate cannot be adjudged illegitimate unless it appears that the husband had no powers of procreation, or the circumstances were such as to render it impossible that he could be the father of the child. Powell v. State 84 OS 165.
2. On the ground of public policy, mere evidence of non access is not sufficient, and therefore the action of the court in ruling out evidence along that line is not prejudical error. Judgment of the lower court affirmed.