The King against The Inhabitants of Kea
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1809 |
| Date | 03 May 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 954
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[132] the king against the inhabitants of kea. Wednesday, May 3d, 1809, A woman cannot give evidence of the non-access of her husband to bastardize her issue, though he be dead at the time of her examination as a witness; and therefore an order of sessions, stated by that Court to be founded in part upon credence given to her testimony of that fact, was quashed. Upon an appeal to the sessions from an order of two justices, removing Thomas Pope, son of Mary Davey, now the wife of James Davey, by her former husband M. Pope, deceased, aged 7 years and 6 months, from the parish of Kea to St. Eval, both in the county of Cornwall; it appeared that Martin Pope married Mary Davey () 5 Term Rep. 197. (b) 2 Bos. & Pull. 398. (c) 3 Bos. & Pull. 237. (d) 7 East, 160, 162. 11 EAST, 133. DENNE V. DUPUIS 955 in 1793, who during such their marriage was delivered of the pauper in the parish of Kenwyn in the said county. That Martin Pope was, at the time of the birth of the pauper, and up to the time of his own death, in 1806, legally settled in St. Eval. That the pauper, being of the age of 7 years and upwards, had not gained any settlement in his own right. That on the 6th of January 1800 a marriage in fact took place between Mary Davey (by her maiden name- of Sitchens) and James Davey, and at the time of the conception of the pauper, they were living together in Kenwyn as man and wife; and that Mary Davey was re-married to James Davey in the beginning of the present year. And after other witnesses had been examined for the purpose of proving that Martin Pope had not had access to Mary Davey at the time of the conception of the pauper, nor for many months before; and after Mary Davey (objection having been first made to her competence to prove this fact, and over-ruled,) was examined, and it appeared from the evidence that Martin Pope had not access to her during the period aforesaid; the sessions, as well on the testimony of the said other witnesses as to the non-access of Martin Pope, as on the evi-[133]-denee so given by Mary Davey as aforesaid, and not exclusively on either, reversed the order of removal, subject to the opinion of this Court on the question, whether the evidence of Mary Davey, in proof of such non-access of the said Martin Pope, her late husband, ought to have been received...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v Russell
...of which I shall only examine one, has confirmed and re-stated the rule as laid down in Goodright. The case in question, ( Rex v. Kea 11 East 132), was one of those familiar Pauper Settlement cases in which it became necessary to determine whether a child was legitimate or not, in order to ......
-
Anon v Anon
...a husband, the wife can prove paternity; The Kingv. The Inhabitants ofSowton (3 Ad. & Ell. 180) ; The King v. The Inhabitants of Kea (11 East, 132); The King v. Lu/e (8 East, 193); Sparrow v. Harrison (3 Curt. 16); Legge v. Edmonds (25 Law J/N. S. (Ch.) 125). [483] The wife having filed an ......
-
The Queen against the Inhabitants of Mansfield
...4. (a)2 See p. 452, note (i), post. (d) 1 Bott, 439 ; PI. 500, 6th ed.; S. C. Ca. K. B. temp. Hard. 79. (e) 8 East, 193. See Rex v. Kea, 11 East, 132. (g) Appendix, note (E), to Le Marchant's Keport of the Proceedings of the House of Lords on the Claims to the Barony of Gardner, 389, 433. A......
-
Boucher v Lawson
...of Mary Alman. There were other witnesses who proved that the husband was within seven miles of his wife during that time." See also 11 East, 132, where it was held that a woman cannot give evidence of the non-access of her husband to bastardize her issue, though he be dead at the time of h......