Case ID: mass_96/html/0197-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alice Finnegan vs. William Dugan.
    In a prosecution under the bastardy act, the jury may properly take into consideration the resemblance between the child and its putative father, if they find such resemblance to exist, on inspection of the child and the putative father.
    Complaint under Gen. Sts. c. 72, concerning the maintenance of bastard children. At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., the child was in court, and the judge, against the defendant’s objection, instructed the jury that they might consider, with the other evidence, any resemblance between the child and the defendant, if they found such resemblance to exist. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he alleged exceptions.
    
      A. F. L. Norris, for the defendant.
    
      A. V. Lynde, for the complainant, cited State v. Bowles, 7 Jones, (N. C.) 579.
   By the Court.

The fact of a resemblance between the child and the putative father was proper for the consideration of the jury. It is a well known physiological fact that peculiarities of feature and personal traits are often transmitted from parent to child. Taken by itself, proof of such resemblance would be insufficient to establish the paternity; but it would be clearly a circumstance to be considered, in connection with other facts tending to prove the issue on which the jury are to pass.

Exceptions overruled. 
      
      
         See Gilmanlown v. Ham, 38 N. H. 108.