The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-09-30
COURT OF ExcHEoUER, July il.
FISHER .. PALMER.

FISHER .. PALMER.
This was an extraordinary cafe, being an ifue di-
reeed from the equity fde of the court to afcer,.in
whether child of,he plaintiff was born alive or nor
piiiutiu 20 keep ms wIre-s Ell
tSte as tenant by colrteiy of England Asthisort of
title has but ieldom occurred may be necciary to
fate, that when man marriesa woman having a
freehold eats, and is rot fetelsd by any marriage
article, it does not remain with the hufband after her
death, nnlefs he has child by her born alive, in
which cafe he keeps it for his lfe and is called tenant
by the oourteiy o! Eng auh The queftion here was.
whethera child of Mr.. Fiher born in the year 7e6
and which was fuppofed to have been Rill-born, cid
not retain after its birth efficient remains of life TO
fay whether it was born alive AT the death of his
vale, Mr.. Fiber fuppofng lie had no right to the e.
tate, had rcfgned it to the defendant who had mar
ried his wie's iiiter bat fubfequent Iaas having
come TO mis- knowledge, he brought this action to re.
cover It back again. prove the facts Of the child
being born alive, the two principal yvi,neGes were
the nurfe and Mary Reynolds, a cool, in the plain
tiff s family; but Dr. Lyon (fnce dead) declared an
hour before the birth that the child was living. He
oTecied bath oi warm water to be prepared, and
gave the child when delivered, to nlnlerfs /, in the
warm water. 1t did not cry nor move nor lhew anv
ether iynpton of life /; but when il was in the wa
ter, there was twice atwtchng and tremuIous motion
OF the lips which both thele women fwore they diC
tinaly iaw: one of them exclaimed the lips had NOV
ed, when Dr. Lyon had directed her to blow iows
Its throatlhe did TO- Blu, it never exhibited any other
fymptom OF life. Doctors Burlington aud fIea,on
were each called, and examined as 70 thei fyn,pton,s
whether the child could be faid to he alive. They
both agreed that the mufcullr motion of the lips could
not have happened if the vital principle had been
quite extinct, and that therefore the child was alive
10 addition to this it fated, that the child was full
grown, and perfectly formed and had not evidently
been dead for any time.
For the defendant, Mr. Dallas contended, tina, the
ymPtoms eated were too equivocal to infer the pre-
fence OF the vital principle in the child, and argued
hat 1t was extremely probable the women were milf
taken.
DR.. Denman, for the defendant, having heard the
yntoms gave his opinion that the child was not alive
He thought the motion of the lips might be produced
without the vital principle, and made diainAion
between uterine life and external life the latter of
which was produced by the air initiating the lungs &
IN the ether circulation produced by another pro-
greis He thought the remains of uterine Iii,
might have produced the tremuous switching of the
lips
The Lord Chief Baron fumnled up very ably and
with great precon the jury and told them to point
their attention to this one queaon" Was there any
fpark OF life whatever in the child at It's birth or
not 9 According as they found the fast, 70 mult be
their verdict.
The jury found that the child was born alive,
which entities the father to recover back the MO.
Tiers eaate.