People v. Hamil

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction under the provisions of section 270 of the Penal Code, which prescribes a penalty for failure to provide for one’s minor child.

Resolving all conflict in' the testimony against the defendant, it appears that he is the father of a child which was born at the St. Elizabeth’s Infant Hospital on October 8, 1922, to a young unmarried mother; that at all times during his acquaintance with the mother of this child the defendant was married to another woman and that there were three children of that marriage; that the defendant was supporting his legitimate family; that he was earning his living by driving a laundry wagon at a salary of thirty-four dollars a week at the time of the trial; that he gave to the mother of his illegitimate child, who is the prosecuting witness here, fifty dollars or sixty dollars before she went to the hospital for the birth of her child; that up to the time the prosecuting witness went to the hospital, which was four months before her child was born, she worked as a waitress and earned her living. After she left the hospital, on November 4, 1922, she resumed her work as a waitress and the defendant gave her seven dollars a week for the support of her child until about April, 1923, at about which time she began this prosecution. The indictment charges the defendant with failure to provide for the child on May 1, 1923. The prosecuting witness testified upon cross-examination: “Q. Now . . . when did the defendant discontinue giving you money for the support of the child? A. It was in April; I don’t know exactly the date;

hut it was after I had sworn out a warrant for him.

Q. When did you swear out this warrant? A. Well, I don’t remember; it was some time in April. ...” She then testified that some time in April, 1923, the defendant came to her home to give her some money for the child; that on that night the health officers had called at his home for some

[788]

purpose: that, thereafter, she telephoned to the defendant’s wife. She was then asked: “Q. Now . . . did you make any demand on this defendant for any money after the time he was over to see you at the time the health officers were out at his place? A. No, I didn’t exactly make any demand, I started—swore out a warrant then for him.”