Defendant was found guilty in bastardy proceedings and he now appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The only question presented is as to the sufficiency of the evidence. The complainant testified that she had intercourse with defendant January 2, 1923, and that as a result thereof her child was born September 17, 1923, or 258 days after the act of intercourse, fully developed. She testified that her last regular menstruation was about December 5, 1922, that her menstruation in early January, 1923, “didn’t amount to anything.” Defendant denies the charge against him. The evidence is conflicting. The girl is corroborated by members of her family who talked to defendant and they say he made statements in the nature of admissions. Defendant contends that he is corroborated by the fact, if several things occurred as related by the girl, that it is unusual or exceptional. That may be. There is evidence tending to show that the period from intercourse to delivery of the child is not *40 necessarily identical with tbe period of gestation. Tbe period of gestation is not a matter to be determined by exact mathematical calculation from tbe date of intercourse and tbe facts incident thereto are well witbin tbe field of consideration for tbe jury. These questions and others discussed in tbe briefs all center around tbe one question of fact, namely, whether tbe defendant is tbe father of tbe child. Tbe circumstances, exceptional occurrences, as well as tbe direct testimony, were all worthy of consideration by tbe triers of fact. They are not sufficient to call for interference by this court. State v. Domish, 154 Minn. 512, 191 N. W. 1002; State v. Wiebke, 154 Minn. 61, 191 N. W. 249; State v. Watzek, 158 Minn. 351, 197 N. W. 669. We have carefully examined tbe record and are of tbe opinion that tbe evidence is sufficient to sustain tbe verdict.

Affirmed.