Court Opinion

ID: 9616198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:44:05.981156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:55.943040
License: Public Domain

Baker, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
As always I dislike and hesitate to disagree with an opinion written by a member of this Court. But I think that the general rule that a husband and wife are not permitted to give testimony which has a tendency to disprove the legitimacy of a child, such as proving non-access or lack of sexual intercourse during the period of gestation, should not be applied to deprive a dependent child of the benefits under our Workmen’s Compensation law that are accorded to an illegitimate minor child of a putative father upon whom such child was dependent for support. However, aside from this, it appears to me that the only reasonable inference from other testimony in the record, establishes that the child (Margaret Carol), was an illegitimate and the child of McCoy Barr, the deceased, and dependent upon him for support; and that the presumption that this child was the child of the husband, Curtis Brazell, has been completely rebutted.
*469It seems to me that the only conclusion which could have been reached was that reached by the Circuit Judge, and that his order should be affirmed. Let the order be reported.