The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-09-07
NJ. sNGol
Harrison Lawrence, plaintiff in error vs. Mary Am


Error to the Circuit Court Of Leake COUNTY
This, proceeding under the act for the man
tenance Of bastard children Jury and verdict for
defendant u error IN the Circuit Court and writ Of
error 10 this Court, appear IA the record.
In the progress of the trial plaintiff error. by his
counsel on cross examination of defendant IN arror
asked her IF she had ever before brad sexual con
nectpn with any person tscc record p. 81 To tins
objection was made by counsel for defendant in cr-
rur. when counsel for plaintiff IN error proposed m
connection with the testimony, if answered in the
negative to offer proof Of the imProhahilty Of the
statement that defendant IN error was mpregnat-d
10y one and the first ac 81 sexual intercourse. The
objection sustained 10y the Court, and exception
hcd 10 this ruling which IS the first error complain
ed Of here.
Generally IN trials for seduction par qoi serititen.
dqiSit and indictments for rape. questions of this
character are admissible. The object Of lndulgng
parties in tins latitude of inquiry on cross
ton inform the Jury Of the character OF the wit
ness whom they are asked to believe Inquiries
having tendency to tins end clearly inadmiss
| he.-Greeneaf's Ev. ed. ass. and cases cIted -
The interests Of Justice do not require IT, nor is the
good OF society promoted by permitting the errors Of
woman whole life perhaps sOrcly repentcd Of 10y
her. though never forgiven by the community TO be
dragged from her own lips. and pcrPetuotrfin judi
"a iI't"if l"I va HlgIt 'l'o "l I,el
II Is sufficient stigma upon the age, that while IT
! consjgn- to unat"nable infamy the inexperienced
victim, who has yielded herself to ms qualification he
bears no part IN public estimation. or AZ least very
lncon~Iderahle one, IA the degradation, and life
! long Indebtedness he has produced. The state has
a deep interest IA tn" equality Of punishmcnts a.
well a. thu Inducements to reformation, IN cases OF
tins character; and the disparity OF suffering and in
equality IN social position, already existing, should
neither DE augmented nor CDuOtuH ED by tribunals
established TO administer justice
But IN cases Of bastardy when the paternity Of the
child IS the fact IN issue and the mother is intro
duced to establish that fact, while II y not compe
tent to investigate her conduct character for hel
whole life, for chastity. this inquiry, if restricted I,
the proper time J. material and pertinent, and sh,
will be held To answer.-I trreenleafs Ev. ass. not.
l. on p. 5g1. 18th edition.; SwIft's Nv ?. 81: McBrd
v Mcbride Ey p. 242; Bale " Hill, i CO 7. p 100
Rex Teal, ct al, IL East 800. 81.
Ifthe question in this case had been confined 4
the period of conception, the inquiry would hav
been material a. tending to show that the real tlthe
| could not be known. TO ask If She had ever befOr
had sexual connection with any person could in n
manner necessarily show the innocence Of planti
| in error cast suspicion upon the testimony Of de
PENDANT in error If answered ID the affirmative ana
answered in the negative, and the testimony ha
been adduced a proposed 10 show that It WAS high
~ improbable thai impre gnation could be produces
| by the first act of COTTON. such testimony Wou
have been wholly inadmissible or too uncertain. IN
definite and hypothetical TO form tho basis IT jud
clsl action investigation. The Courts. IN our Opn
ION, have gone quite far enough m Sugectng the lft
liberty and property Of the citizen 70 the mere specu
latye opinions Of men claiming to be expert IN mat
tiers Of science; whose confidence, IN many cases
bears direct smllitude and ratio 10 their Ignorance
We are not disposed 20 extend thfS doctrine int
the field of hypothetical conjecture and probability
and to give certainty e'dsnoe to that which IN It
very nature must be wholly uncertain and unsat sa6
tory-iependent on circumstances and condition
entirely secret hidden, and unknown rs facts; an
without knowledge Of which neither scieno" no
experience, however gr6at could afford us the RENE
test information.
We think, therefore. the question and evidenc
proposed were properly 'NNIutlch from liit July,
The second ground 81 error assigned proceeds o
the assumption that this proceedings to be regulJ
ted at least To come eNteut, BY the act Of lS32
Hutch. Code, y. $50. THIS h. mistake, We think
The proceeding il under the provisions Of the neN
Code, chap. p, p 2l6 and j. in strict cOnfonmit
Herewith. mere was no error IN the instructor
complained of =
The last ground Of error relied on is that the vel
DIT = against the decided preponderance Of ev
ience We do not agree With counsel in this view
hut think the Jury may have been warranted in :
finding. II "A involving the Crcdihilty OF lli
Witnesses, and circumstances arc not wanting tend
T. ing to sustain the view taken 10y the jury.
Judgment affirmed, HARRIS