From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Boettcher v. Boettcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 30, 1910
141 App. Div. 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)

Opinion

December 30, 1910.

William Brunner, for the appellant.

Theodore Connoly, for the respondent.

Present — INGRAHAM, P.J., CLARKE, SCOTT, MILLER and DOWLING, JJ.


This is an appeal from an order of one of the judges of the Court of General Sessions affirming a judgment of a city magistrate convicting defendant as a disorderly person. The judgment of conviction shows that appellant was charged with and convicted of abandoning relator, his wife, and leaving her without proper means of support, so that she was liable to become a burden upon the public. The evidence before the city magistrate showed clearly that it was the wife who abandoned the husband; that the latter always had been and still was able and willing to support her, and that she was in no danger of becoming a public charge. The case falls precisely within the rule declared by this court in People ex rel. Demos v. Demos ( 115 App. Div. 410).

The order appealed from was erroneous, and both it and the judgment of conviction must be reversed.


Order and judgment reversed. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Boettcher v. Boettcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 30, 1910
141 App. Div. 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)
Case details for

People ex Rel. Boettcher v. Boettcher

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. MARIE BOETTCHER, Respondent, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 30, 1910

Citations

141 App. Div. 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)
126 N.Y.S. 301

Citing Cases

Matter of Rottenberg v. Rottenberg

(" Blair" v. " Blair", 204 Misc. 58, 59; cf. People v. Karlsioe, 1 App. Div. 571, 573, 574; People ex rel.…

City of New York v. Itzkowitz

To adjudge the defendant husband guilty of crime upon the evidence in this record appears to be contrary to…