Case ID: tenn_16/html/0210-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Geeen J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State vs. Coatney.
    A charged B with having begotten a bastard child, of which she had been delivered; B made an affidavit in these words, “that he was able to prove to the satisfaction of every one that he was not the father of said child; that the pharge was wholly without foundation, and made out of malice towards him; and that justice required an issue should he made up to try the truth of the charge:” Held, that the affidavit was sufficient under the act of 1822, ch. 29,sec. 1, to entitle the party charged, to an issue to try the truth of the charge.
    When a woman charges upon oath, that A is the father of a bastard child of which she has been delivered, and an issue is made up to ascertain the truth of the charge, evidence of the general bad character of the woman is admissible, to disprove the charge, by showing her unworthy of credit upon oath.
    Coatney, the defendant, was charged before two justices of the peace of Greene county, by Malinda Fielding, with having begotten a bastard child of which she had been delivered. Upon this affidavit a warrant was issued, and Coatney was apprehended and bound to appear at the next county court to answer the charge. The defendant, appeared and filed his affidavit, setting forth that he was able to prove to the satisfaction of every one, that he was not the father of said child; that the charge was wholly without foundation, and made out of malice towards him; and that justice required that an issue should be made up to try the truth of the charge. An issue was accordingly ordered, and the court upon the trial thereof,.permitted the defendant to prove Malinda Fielding was a woman of bad character, and ought not to be believed on her oath; to the reception of which evidence, the attorney general excepted at the time. The jury determined from the proof, that the defendant did not beget the child as charged, and the court ordered that he he discharged. From this judgment the attorney general appealed to the. circuit court, where the judgment was affirmed, and an appeal in error to this court.
    
      T. -ft. R. Nelson, Solicitor for the dist. of the State.
    
      R. J. JW Kinney, for defendant.
   Geeen J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon this record the attorney general malees the questions, 1. That the affidavit filed by the defendant is not sufficiently specific to have entitled him to an issue under the provisions of the act of 1822, ch. 29, sec. 1, and that the court in directing an issue upon such application erred. 2. That the court erred in permitting testimony to be heard, impeaching the credit 'of Malinda Fielding on the ground of her general bad character.

As to the first objection, the act sayS:-“That when any single woman shall accuse any man of being the father of a bastard child or children begotten of her body, such person so accused, shall file his affidavit, clearly setting forth that justice required an issue to be made to try the truth of such charge; whereupon it shall be the duty of the court in which such charge may be pending, to hear proof and determine the matter as to right and justice may appertain.” The affidavit required by this act, must clearly set-forth that justice requires an issue to be made to try the truth of such charge. This affidavit uses the very words of the act, and in addition thereto, alleges that proof can be made to the satisfaction of every one that he is not the father. Now, the only question to be determined, was, whether or not the defendant was the father of the child. An assertion that he can prove he is not the father, is equivalent to a denial that he is the father, for we are not to presume that a falsehood would he proved. We think, therefore, that the affidavit is sufficiently explicit.

As to the second point, we think the testimonj was competent,., and was properly received. It was determined in Goddard’s case, (2 Yer. 96), that the woman need not he examined in court, but that her declaration before the “justices should be taken as true, until the defendant shall, by proof in oppo$ition to the charge, convince the court that the same is untrue.” Her declaration before the justice, may nevertheless be shown to be untrue by any of those means by which the evidence of of a party in other cases máy be impeached.

It would be monstrous to fix a stigma on a man’s character, and a burden on his estate, upon the unsupported affidavit of a woman, whose character was so abandoned that no one would believe her on oath. It does not follow from hence that every single woman who may have a bastard child could be discredited. That fact alone would not give her a general character, rendering her unworthy of belief. Besides, circumstances in corroboration of the woman’s oath, may often be adduced to support it, and to satisfy the court of the truth of the charge, even when her unsupported statement would be questionable.

Judgment affirmed.