Anon v Anon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 January 1856 |
| Date | 08 January 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 1193
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 23 Beav. 273. Overruled, Poulett Peerage case [1903], A. C. 395.
[481] anon. v. anon.(!) Jan. 8, 1856. [S. C. 23 Beav. 273. Overruled, Pwlett Peerage case. [1903], A. C. 395.] On a question of legitimacy, it appeared that the child had been born three months after the marriage. It was suggested, that the wife had not seen the husband until immediately before the marriage ; and that at the period of conception he was married to another person. In the cross-examination of the mother, it was proposed to ask her-" How long she had known her husband before her marriage." This question was objected to, but the Court allowed her to be asked-" When did you first become acquainted with your husband1?" and she having answered twelve months before her marriage, the Court would not permit this subject to be further pursued. It was referred to Chambers to inquire as to what children there were of Matilda P. It appeared that she had married Lee H. on the 14th of October 1844, and had a child on the 6th of January 1845, about three months after the marriage. Lee H. (1) dates. 1843. Aug. or Sep. Matilda A. first met Lee H. 1844. Oct. 14. She married Lee H. 1845. Jan. 6. Child born. 1846. May. Lee H. died. R. v.-38* 1194 WOODBURN V. GRANT 22BEAV.4M. left his wife, and died in the Morea in May 1846. It was suggested that she had never seen Lee H. until immediately before her marriage, that he was then already married, and that, therefore, the child was not his. [482] In cross-examining Matilda P., on her affidavit made in support of her child's claim, it was proposed to ask her, how long she had known Lee H. before ter marriage with him. This question was objected to, on the ground that its object was to bastardize the issue, by shewing that the child could not possibly be Lee H.'s. Mr. Shapter and Mr. Ballantine. There is no presumption of law that the child was the issue of Lee H., unless it be shewn that he was either a bachelor or widower during such a period before the marriage that he might, whilst unmarried, have begotten the child. The presumption that a child, begotten before, but born after the marriage of a woman, is the issue of the husband, arises only when the man or woman were, at the time of conception, capable of contracting marriage; Butler's Co. Lit. (pp. 244 b., n. 2 ; 245 a., n. 1); Doe d. Birtwhistle v. Vardill (5 Barn. & Cr. 439, n.; 2 Cl. & Fin. 571). The rule of evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cocks v Juncken
-
Russell v Russell
...show, the authorities, which have been before your Lordships, had not been discussed. The Anonymous case reported in 22 Beav. 481 and 23 Beav. 273 alone had been referred to at length, and no doubt Lord Halsbury thought, and rightly thought, that the nature of the case before the Committee ......