Hurd v. Walker

THOMPSON, J.

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment which was rendered against him in a suit under the provisions of section 231 of the Civil Code to determine the paternity of an illegitimate child. It was held that he is the father of the child.

The appellant contends that the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence; that the court erred in receiving in evidence a previous record of the proceedings of the juvenile court declaring him to be a ward of the court without first requiring the foundation for its admission to be proved. It is also asserted the court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The appeal is presented to this court on a settled bill of exceptions.

An appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial does not lie. (Sec. 963, Code Civ. Proc.;

Nordin

v.

Eagle Rock State Bank,

139 Cal. App. 584, 589 [34 Pac. (2d) 490];

[527]

Heine Piano Co.

v.

Bloomer,

183 Cal. 398 [191 Pac. 900].) Section 963,

supra,

was amended in 1915 so as to exclude the right of appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial. The notice of appeal from the order denying the motion for new trial in this ease is ineffectual.

The findings and judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the father of Kenneth Johnson, the illegitimate child of the defendant, are sufficiently supported by the evidence. There is a conflict of evidence in that regard. Under the well-established rule governing appellate courts under such circumstances we are powerless to disturb the findings or judgment.

(Blythe

v.

Ayers,