
    [No. 11970.
    Department Two.
    December 1, 1914.]
    The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Walter Bracking, Appellant.
      
    
    Husband and Wife — Offenses—Wife Abandonment — Evidence— Sufficiency. The uncontroverted evidence of the state is sufficient to sustain a verdict of willful wife abandonment and nonsupport, where it appeared that the prosecuting witness and defendant were husband and wife, that he did not support his wife during any of the time in 1913, and prior thereto, that he was a mining promoter, healthy and strong, and maintained an office in the city of S., and had refused to support his wife, who was without funds; in view of 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 5933-3, providing that proof of abandonment and nonsupport shall be prima facie evidence that it was willful.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Ronald, J., entered November 25, 1913, upon a trial and conviction of willful wife abandonment and nonsupport.
    Affirmed.
    P. M. Liddy, for appellant.
    
      John F. Murphy and Crawford E. White, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 144 Pac. 530.
    
   Main, J.

The defendant in this case was charged, under ch. 28, Laws of 1913, p. 71 (3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 5933-1 et seq.), with the crime of wife abandonment and nonsupport. In the superior court, the cause was tried to a jury, and a verdict of guilty returned. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for a period of eight months. From this judgment and sentence, the appeal is prosecuted.

The only question here presented is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury. The cause went to the jury upon the evidence of the state alone, the defendant having produced no testimony in his behalf. The proof shows that the prosecuting witness and the defendant were husband and wife; that he did not support his wife at any time during the year 1913 and for some time prior thereto; that he was a mining promoter, able-bodied, healthy, and strong, and had an office in the Globe building in Seattle; that the complaining witness was without funds, and that the defendant without cause refused to support her.

Section 3 (Id., § 5933-3) of the act under which the defendant was charged provides that proof of abandonment or nonsupport of a wife “is prima facie evidence that such abandonment or nonsupport, ... is willful.” Under the statute the evidence was ample to sustain the verdict.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Crow, C. J., Mount, Fullerton, and Ellis, JJ., concur.  