Hale v. State

The plaintiff in error, Charles P. Hale, was convicted for the nonsupport of his wife, Ruth Hale, the judgment of the lower court being that he pay $50 per month-for a period of twelve months for her maintenance, and from this judgment plaintiff in error has appealed to this court.

The only question is whether or not plaintiff in error and the prosecutrix were married and whether or not they occupied the relationship of husband and wife.

The prosecutrix, Ruth Hale, testified that in November, 1927, in California, she and the plaintiff in error were married by a justice of the peace by the name…