State v. Hammond
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, First District; Hon. W. W. Maughan, Judge. David Hammond was convicted of being tbe father of a bastard child, and was required to contribute to -its support. He appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtFrick, J.
The appellant was charged with being the father of a bastard child of which the prosecutrix was delivered some time before the trial, was found guilty, and was required to contribute to its education and support. From the judgment entered against him, he appeals. His counsel has argued twenty-eight separate assignments of error in his brief. We shall consider those which we deem possess at least some merit.
It is argued that the bastardly act (Chapter 62, Laws Utah 1911) offends against Article 6, Section 23 of the Constitution of this state, which provides: 1
“Except general appropriation…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hopt v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Edler v. EdwardsUtah Supreme Court · 1908
- Marioneaux v. CutlerUtah Supreme Court · 1907
- State v. ReeseUtah Supreme Court · 1913
- Holcomb v. People ex rel. TuttleIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Utah State Fair Ass'n v. GreenUtah Supreme Court · 1926
- Riggins v. District Court of Salt Lake CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1935
- Baker v. Department of RegistrationUtah Supreme Court · 1931
- State v. SaxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- State Tax Commission v. City of LoganUtah Supreme Court · 1936
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.