New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-29
SOME ENGLISH PRECEDENT5

The Court met at p. NJ, pursuant TO adjourn
nment, and Mr. Eysrt5 resumed his argument
Mr. Evsrs- yOur Honor please had been diverted 70
line Of authorities in our own country little earlier than
should have done and wish 10 call your onor attention TO
line Of English Of considerable importance this gen
cra rule / cite the OF the Hing tS Lg6t, in the
sth Ct East, 1G This case known 70 the
English law and 70 our law az a bastardy case, the
point being, a your Honor understands TO fix the
responsibility upon puatyc father and Of bastard child
in order to save pub1 from the expense that otherwise
would be put to- Those in form Of the King or
Crown the Parsh public representation against the
putae father that your Honor that no party inter
venes make rule growing ont Of the question OF who %
party The PARSE il side and the putaye father
the other to whom the bastard child "a 70 be attributed
And The question up whether the mother Of the bastard
being married woau the husband Of the woman could be
admitted prove anything that tended 70 produce
the conclusion OF the adultery Of his wife being the mother Of
this child by her husband but by the puaye father and
one part Of The proof for the public 10 prove that this child
born parents wcdock not the child Of the husband
but Of putye father and necessary link or important
link might be 10 prove the access 81 the husband to
the wife during the period Of CESSATION with the child and the
husband the ordinary necessities convenience Of the law
would be the natural witness prove that incidental fact in the
proof OF his wfes adueyhIs nonaccess during the
period to which the CESSATION to be attributed And
was held M t court, that the husband could not be limited
wtness to prove and the ground OF the marital
relation that he could be heard TO furnish testimony that
formed any part OF the proof Of the impllaon Of this grave
crmnaity on the part Of the wife Aud use the word
crmnaiy in regard this fault ohense sn because it is
the language uniformly Of the law and Of the law books and
does not turn at all upon question whether adultery has been
made by legaon-as not at common law aud is not
at common law anywhere-a crime In England II was not
crime There criminal exposure by any such proof
concerning the wife than there is the State Of New
York yet English Courts pass uponit in reference to this
line OF cases and this point Of the access as
yabe by the husband excluded by that policy Of the law
that does not permit husband wife to testify concerning
one another the preduce Of the other in matters Of
this nature Lord Peterborough say
hree exceptions have been taken this order that
the wife was generally and alone TO the fact Of
access and that the order founded on her evidence alone
whereas laid down in the that an order Of this sort
cannot be the evidence Of the wife alone but that
there must be other proof OF tho non-access. This
objection grounded upon principle Of public policy, which
p3bs he wife from being examined against her husband in
any matter affecting his interest character upes in cases Of
can probably have present. but exceptions OF that sort
been used and that 1t ID necessary anu on hat point al
loWable, TO examine her
Now this case dealing with the general proposition ap
piled to that line Of cases. mp for consideration in another
case The King rs The Inhabitants Of Kahe Of town.
in the 18th OF East, 1872.
woman cannot give evidence Of the Of her
band 10 hasardze her ISSUE though he be dead al the time Of
her examination witness and therefore order Of sessions
stated b. that be founded part upon credcnce given
to her testimony Of that fact, was quashed"
Lord Peterborough, Gu j., when this case called
said that TO hold this evidence receivable would be in direct
contradiction The King Reading and other cases which
were not meant be oyerrued in The King LuGe the
Court in that intending that the wife had been examined
only to those which she might legally prove aud not to
the nonaccess Of her husband the principle OF public policy
precluding her from being witness to that fact"
And the rest Of the Court sgnAed their ia this
opinion Then counsel argued that the difference made
because in when the wife called her husband
dead and they argued that point and said II the Court
sdere that the rule stood the broad ground general pub
lie policy affecting the children born during the marriage
as well as the parties themselves, they could pretend
TO argue in support Of the order That Is, the diff
ference that they raise 10 the Court did make
distinction rule Of the Court upon the whole
broad ground public policy they could not attempt to make
that distinction.
1.-THE Court unanimously assent TO this and lie Blanc j.
added they bound the statement Of this
the objection taken TO the competency of the wife TO
| the fact Of non access"
We cannot bring book that wanted from the library but
refer your my learned friends the Of Pope
ogt Pope, LIST OF Moody Ryan 269 1t more modern
In American reports the report Of the Of
The State Herman 10 Iredel North Carolina Reports 5O9
which these English being the law Of this
country. And the principle in the case OF The state
against Petaway Sd Hawks ~ C. Reports. And certain
Of DennisOn Page 70 Penn State Repor 40 from
which read;
"a mother OF child born ia wed0ck. but beeQtten beote