State v. Waller
Citations
- 90 Kan. 829
- 136 P. 215
- 1913 Kan. LEXIS 313
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS’ BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. “Desertion Act” — Remedial in Purpose — Liberally Interpreted. The Desertion Act (Laws 1911, ch. 163), which provides for the punishment of a husband who, without just cause, neglects or refuses to provide for the support and maintenance of his wife in destitute or necessitous circumstances, is not a mere poor law, and was not designed merely to redress the public grievance flowing from the conduct denounced. It was intended to Supplement other means and remedies for enforcing the moral and social duty of a husband to support his wife, is remedial in purpose, although it provides for the infliction of a severe penalty, and is to be liberally interpreted to accomplish the legislative intention.</p> <p>2. - “In Destitute or Necessitous Circumstances” Defined. The words “in destitute or necessitous circumstances” mean needing the necessaries of life, which cover not only primitive physical needs, things absolutely indispensable to human existence and decency, but those things also which are - in fact necessary to the particular person left without support.</p> <p>3. - Question for Jury. Should a wife having an estate of her own be neglected by her husband, the character and extent of her resources and their availability to meet her needs may be taken into consideration in determining whether or not she is in necessitous circumstances, the question in all cases being one of fact for the jury to determine under proper instructions from the court. ,</p> <p>4. -r- Not Material Necessaries be Supplied by Wife’s Own Efforts or Outside Help. Whenever a husband, without just cause, neglects or refuses to provide for the support and maintenance of his wife, and thereby places her. in such a situation that she stands in need of the necessaries of life, it is not material that they are supplied by her own labor or by sympathizing relatives, friends, or strangers, so that she does not in fact suffer from the privation. He is guilty if he leaves
Judges: Burch
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Yarborough v. YarboroughSupreme Court· 1933-12-04· cited 183×
- Craig v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1959-11-17· cited 52×
- State v. WellmanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1918-02-09· cited 51×
- Commonwealth v. O'HARRAHCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1953-11-13· cited 44×
- Ewell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1955-05-17· cited 31×
- Kistler v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1921-01-26· cited 31×
- State v. LangfordOregon Supreme Court· 1918-12-03· cited 29×
- Redewill v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court· 1934-02-05· cited 28×
- State v. BlandSupreme Court of Kansas· 1913-12-06· cited 21×
- State v. LathamTennessee Supreme Court· 1916-04-15· cited 17×
- State v. BessUtah Supreme Court· 1913-12-22· cited 17×
- State v. WohlfortSupreme Court of Kansas· 1927-03-12· cited 12×
- Roberts v. MalottArizona Supreme Court· 1956-01-31· cited 11×
- State v. KirklandCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1992-09-18· cited 9×
- State v. KnetzerCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1979-09-28· cited 6×
- State v. WeldinNew York Court of General Session of the Peace· 1937-01-25· cited 6×
- Rouse v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals· 1966-03-29· cited 5×
- O'DONLEY v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1950-05-24· cited 4×
- State v. SelbergCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1995-10-27· cited 4×
- Ulrich v. StateNew York Court of General Session of the Peace· 1948-06-02· cited 2×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced 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.