Volume 249 — Iowa Reports

<bold>EMPLOYMENT SECURITY: Appeal — new facts not presented at</bold> 1 <bold>hearing may not be considered.</bold> Matters in support of a claim for unemployment benefits which claimant attempts to set out by affidavit attached to the petition on appeal, which were not previously shown and not included in the transcript filed by the commission, could not be considered by the court. <bold>EMPLOYMENT SECURITY: No inconsistency between sections <cross_reference>96.2</cross_reference> and</bold> 2 <bold><cross_reference>96.5</cross_reference>, C., `54.</bold> Section <cross_reference>96.2</cross_reference> which is a general guide for the entire chapter pertaining to employment security is not inconsistent with section <cross_reference>96.5</cross_reference> disqualifying for benefits an employee voluntarily leaving his work without good cause attributable to his employer. <bold>EMPLOYMENT SECURITY: Claim — burden of proof.</bold> Claimant has the 3 burden to establish his right to benefits under the Iowa Employment Security Law. <bold>EMPLOYMENT SECURITY: Hearing — appeal — weight of findings of</bold> 4 <bold>commission.</bold> Where the facts presented at the hearing on a claim<page_number>Page 155</page_number> for unemployment benefits are in dispute, or where reasonable minds may differ on the inferences to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances, the findings of the commission are conclusive. <bold>EMPLOYMENT SECURITY: Unemployment benefits — claimant failed</bold> 5 <bold>to establish rights.</bold> Where claimant for unemployment benefits allegedly left his work because of a back injury, remained away for a month without requesting or receiving a leave of absence and did not produce the testimony of the doctor who treated him or the employees he claims witnessed his accident, there was ample competent evidence to warrant the commission in denying the claim.

<bold>EVIDENCE: Handwriting expert — when deemed substantive</bold> 1 <bold>evidence.</bold> The facts shown in support of the conclusions of a handwriting expert must be deemed substantive evidence rather than mere expert opinion. <bold>EVIDENCE: Oral statements of persons since deceased —</bold> 2 <bold>admissibility.</bold> Testimony relating to oral statements of persons long since deceased should be closely scrutinized and cautiously received because it is not susceptible of denial and the witnesses may not have been capable or desirous of accurately relating what the deceased person may have said. <bold>EVIDENCE: Pedigree and family history — admissible evidence.</bold> 3 In matters of pedigree and family history evidence is generally admissible of declarations of deceased members of the family or others likely to know the facts who were without apparent motive to misstate them. <bold>BASTARDS: Presumption of legitimacy.</bold> Until the contrary is 4 shown, it is presumed every person is legitimate, and the burden of proof rests on the party claiming illegitimacy; the proof must be clear, strong and satisfactory. <bold>BASTARDS: Basis for presumption of legitimacy.</bold> The presumption 5 that every person is legitimate is not dependent upon actual proof of birth during lawful wedlock, but is based upon broad principles of natural justice, the supposed virtue of the mother, and the probability of morality rather than immorality. It is akin to the presumption of innocence. <bold>EVIDENCE: Handwriting experts — based on microscopic study —</bold> 6 <bold>weight.</bold> Evidence of a handwriting expert based upon comparison of handwriting by microscopic study of enlarged photographs and otherwise is not evidence of an unsatisfactory character. <bold>EVIDENCE: Handwriting experts — weight of testimony.</bold> The 7 weight to be given opinions of handwriting experts depends largely upon the clearness with which they demonstrate the correctness of such opinions.<page_number>Page 639</page_number> <bold>DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION: Identity of common ancestor</bold> 8 <bold>established by the record.</bold> In an action to determine heirs of an intestate where issue was raised whether the person through whom defendants claim is the same person as the father of the intestate having the same name, the evidence supports trial court's finding such identity was shown.