
    Gee v. State. State v. Slavens.
    
      Trial for failure to support illegitimate child — Record of bastardy proceedings not admissible evidence.
    
    On the trial of the issues joined, by a plea of not guilty to an information' or an indictment charging the defendant with willfully and negligently failing to support his illegitimate child the record of a bastardy proceedings instituted by the mother of the child in- which the defendant was adjudged to be its reputed father is not admissible in evidence.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.
    Exceptions to decision of Common Pleas Court of Scioto county.
    In the former case Gee was convicted in the police court of the city of Cleveland upon an information which charged him with unlawfully, negligently and willfully depriving his illegitimate child of necessary food, clothing and shelter. Upon the trial of the issues joined by the plea of not guilty the record of a civil proceeding under the bastardy act was, against the objection of defendant, admitted to establish his paternity of the child which was alleged to have been neglected by him. The sentence of the police court was affirmed by the court of common pleas and the circuit court, and this petition in error is for the reversal of .the judgments of the three courts for the admission of said evidence. “ .
    
      T. J. Boss, for plaintiff in error.
    
      ^Albert T. Holmes, for defendant in error.
    In the second case Slavens was placed on trial in the common pleas court of Scioto county upon an indictment charging him with neglecting and refusing to support his illegitimate child. Upon the trial the prosecuting attorney offered in evidence the record in a proceeding under the bastardy act instituted upon the complaint of the mother, in which Slavens was adjudged to be the reputed father of the child. This record was excluded by the court on objection by the defendant's counsel, and the prosecuting attorney excepted. The cause is before us upon that exception.
    
      Henry Bannon, for the exception.
    
      Noah J. Dever, contra.
    
   By the Court.

The record offered is not competent under the general rule that in a criminal proceeding the record of a civil action cannot be introduced to establish the facts on which it was rendered. The judgments offered followed verdicts which might have been lawfully returned upon a mere preponderance of evidence. A "higher degree of evidence was required to convict under the indictment and the information. Greenleaf on Evidence, section 437; Britton v. The State, 77 Ala., 202; Riker v. Hooper, 35 Vt., 457.

In the former* case the judgments of the courts below are reversed. In the latter the exception is overruled.  