Case Name: Johanna S. Odewald vs. Charles H. Woodsum
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1886-10-22
Citations: 142 Mass. 512
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johanna S. Odewald vs. Charles H. Woodsum.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 512–512

Head Matter:
Johanna S. Odewald vs. Charles H. Woodsum.
Hampden.
Sept. 28.
Oct. 22, 1886.
Devens & W. Allen, JJ., absent.
At the trial of a complaint under the bastardy act, Pub. Sts. c. 85, if the complainant testifies that the respondent got her with child in a certain month, and the respondent introduces evidence tending to show that, in that month, a third person spent part of an evening with the complainant under circumstances which naturally excite suspicions that they had sexual intercourse with each other,.evidence that, in the preceding month, the complainant and such person had an interview under suspicious circumstances, is admissible, within the discretion of the presiding judge.
Complaint under the bastardy act, Pub. Sts. c. 85. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Knowlton, J., the jury returned a verdict for the respondent; and the complainant alleged exceptions to the admission of certain evidence, the nature of which appears in the opinion.
W. 3. Brooks, for the complainant,
cited Eddy v. Gray, 4 Allen, 435; Clement v. Kimball, 98 Mass. 535; Maloney v. Piper, 105 Mass. 233.
G. M. Stearns, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Morton, C. J.
The complainant testified that the respondent got her with child in October. The respondent introduced evidence tending to show that, in October, one Lawson spent part of an evening with the complainant, under circumstances which naturally excite suspicions of improper relations between them, as bearing upon the question whether Lawson and the complainant then had sexual intercourse with each other. It was competent for the respondent to show the previous relations between them; and, for this purpose, the evidence that, in the preceding September, the complainant and Lawson had an interview under suspicious circumstances, was admissible, within the discretion of the court. Beers v. Jackman, 103 Mass. 192.
Exceptions overruled.