Opinion ID: 2412555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims of Sallie Ritchie and James Woolery Ritchie

Text: Deceased, Everett Ritchie, and Sallie Ritchie, then Sallie Napier, went through a marriage ceremony on September 27, 1946, which was 14 days before the entry of a judgment divorcing him from Rhoda Romine Ritchie. After living together about three months, they separated in December 1946, although it appears from the evidence that they spent a few weekends together after this separation. On December 23, 1947, almost a year after separation, James Woolery Ritchie was born to her. There was evidence produced that deceased gave Sallie $35 to help on her medical expenses incident to his birth and $10 on three other occasions, one of them after the baby was born. While there is some doubt as to whether deceased was the father of this child, the Board legally presumed that he was since there was no definite proof to the contrary. However, the Board denied the claim of Sallie Ritchie on the ground that there is no conclusive presumption of dependency as to a bigamous widow when she was not living with or dependent on deceased at the time of his death, and denied the claim of James Woolery Ritchie on the ground that he was not living with or being supported by deceased at the time of his death. The evidence fully justified the finding of the Board in both cases. We think such contributions as were made to the mother for the benefit of the child, totaling in all not more than $65, in this case were only occasional gifts and not support to the child or recognition of parental responsibility within the meaning of the Compensation Act. Fuller v. Carrs Fork Coal Co., 280 Ky. 25, 132 S.W.2d 540; Hatfield Campbell-Creek Coal Co. v. Adams, 275 Ky. 744, 122 S.W.2d 787, and cases therein cited. The facts as to support of this child by the supposed father are far different from those in U. S. Coal & Coke Co. v. Sutton (Williams v. U. S. Coal & Coke Co.), 268 Ky. 405, 105 S.W.2d 173, cited and relied on by these two appellants. After a careful consideration of the evidence and the full and comprehensive opinion and award of the full Board on review, we are of the opinion that the Board arrived at a correct solution in settling the claims of all parties arising out of the tangled marital relations of deceased. The award of the Board was based on ample evidence of probative value and even if we differed with its findings of fact, which we do not, we would not be authorized to reverse the judgment upholding the award since we find no error of law in applying the facts of the case. Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.