Opinion
No. 1886.
Argued November 19, 1956.
Decided December 20, 1956.
APPEAL FROM JUVENILE COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EDITH H. COCKRILL, J.
Russell Morris, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Appellant was charged in the Juvenile Court with being the father of a child born out of wedlock, pursuant to the provisions of Code 1951, Supp. IV, § 11-951 et seq.; after a trial before the judge he was found to be the child's father and a judgment was entered ordering him to pay for its support and, as well, a hospitalization bill incident to its birth; the appeal is from this judgment.
While appellant assigns a number of errors, the majority involve but one question, namely, whether the evidence justified the finding and judgment. We are convinced that it did.
A careful study of the record convinces us that the court was justified in arriving at its decision; we find there was substantial evidence tending to prove all of the essential elements of the charge.
As we said in Smith v. District of Columbia: "This court is bound by the rule that where there is substantial evidence to support a finding we have no right to reverse."
D.C.Mun.App., 99 A.2d 407, 408.
The remaining assignments of error find no support in the record and as we said in Ellison v. United States: "* * * [W]e cannot decide appeals on the basis of facts stated in briefs unless such facts also appear in records brought up from the trial court."
D.C.Mun.App., 85 A.2d 917.
Affirmed.