Opinion
November 18, 1929.
January 29, 1930.
Order of support — Pre-nuptial unchastity of wife — Act of April 13, 1867, P.L. 78.
On a petition for an order of support under the Act of April 13, 1867, P.L. 78, the record disclosed that the defendant married the petitioner after a prosecution for fornication and bastardy had been instituted against him. At the time of the prosecution he had no doubt that he was the father of the expected child. He subsequently refused to live with the petitioner after having been informed of her prenuptial unchastity with other men.
Held: That the pre-nuptial unchastity of the wife did not relieve the husband of his duty to support his wife and child in the circumstances shown in the record.
Appeal No. 133, March T., 1930, by defendant from decree and order of Q.S., Clarion County, December Sessions, 1929, No. 9, in the case of Commonwealth v. William Orvin Branthoover.
Before PORTER, P.J., TREXLER, KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM and BALDRIGE, JJ. Affirmed.
Petition for an order of support. Before HARVEY, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court made an order of support in the amount of $40 per month. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court.
C.F. Whitmer, for appellant.
W.J. Geary, for appellee.
Argued November 18, 1929.
This appeal is from an order of support for wife and child in the amount of $40 a month, pursuant to the Act of April 13, 1867, P.L. 78. Appellant married his wife January 20, 1927; their child was born June 29, 1927; when he married petitioner he had no doubt that he was the father of the child that she was expecting. This proceeding was begun September 3, 1929. Appellant asserts that he should not support his wife and child because of her alleged pre-nuptial unchastity. Even if it were true — which we need not determine — it would not relieve him in the circumstances of this case: see generally Hoffman v. Hoffman, 30 Pa. 417; Allen's App., 99 Pa. 196.
Nothing has been suggested to indicate that the order is excessive; appellant is a carpenter earning $35 a week.
Order affirmed.