State v. Baurens
Citations
- 117 La. 136
- 41 So. 442
- 1906 La. LEXIS 657
Syllabus
<p>1. Husband and Wife — Failure of Husband to Support.</p> <p>It is the duty of the husband and father to provide for the support of his wife and minor children, in necessitous circumstances, at the matrimonial domicile, and that obligation is not discharged, if, by reason of his cruel treatment, the wife is compelled to find shelter, with her minor children, at the residence of her father, in a neighboring parish; nor does any change of venue, as to the offense of neglecting to provide, etc., as denounced by Act No. 34, p. 42, of 1902, result from those conditions.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 26, Cent. Dig. Husband and Wife, §§ 11, 124.]</p> <p>2. Same — Criminal Offense.</p> <p>Act No. 34, p. 42, of 1902, contemplates that a man shall, at all times, provide for the support of his wife and minor children, in necessitous circumstances, and his neglect to do so, during a period of time not covered by a conviction already secured under that act, is a distinct offense as to which the plea of autre fois convict predicated on such conviction is not good.</p> <p>3. Criminal Law — Appeal—Review.</p> <p>This court is without authority, whether in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction or otherwise, to review the findings of an inferior court, in a criminal prosecution, upon a question of fact, and hence will not undertake such review, where, in a prosecution under Act No. 34, p. 42, of 1902, the trial judge has found that “the circumstances and financial ability” of the defendant are such as to warrant his being condemned to pay a certain amount for the support of his wife and child.</p> <p>4. Husband and Wife — Support of Wife— Criminal Prosecution.</p> <p>The pendency, on appeal, of an action by the husband for separation from bed and board, can have no effect in the matter of the execution of a sentence imposed on the husband, in a criminal prosecution, for neglect to provide for the support of his wife, and a fortiori is this true, where, by
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- precluding plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim that arose from “the treatment of his supervisors” in the course of his employment
- district court had jurisdiction over ADA and state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 144(c)(1)(A)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.