The evidence sustains the contention that the defendant was the father of the child involved. Under the circumstances of this case there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for an examination before trial. Although defendant may have been somewhat restricted in his right to cross-examine in the first instance he was subsequently permitted to go into the prohibited matters and any error in this regard was thereby corrected.
Order unanimously affirmed,...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.