State Ex Rel. Biggs v. Bennett
Supreme Court of North Carolina
PROCEEDING in Bastardy, tried before Moore, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of Martin Superior Court. The defendant offered to prove that just nine months prior to the birth of the child, the prosecutrix had illicit intercourse with another man, and that on one occasion about that time they were caught in the act. The State objecting to the evidence, it was ruled out by the court, and the defendant excepted.
Read the full summary
PROCEEDING in Bastardy, tried before Moore, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of Martin Superior Court. The defendant offered to prove that just nine months prior to the birth of the child, the prosecutrix had illicit intercourse with another man, and that on one occasion about that time they were caught in the act. The State objecting to the evidence, it was ruled out by the court, and the defendant excepted. There was a verdict and judgment against the defendant, and thereupon he appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.
The only question is, did the evidence offered tend to rebut the presumption of paternity, which the statute creates upon the oath of the woman ? Bat. Rev., chap. 9, sec. 4. If it did not, it was irrelevant. We think it did not. Taken in connection with the oath of the woman, it would only tend to prove the physiological fact that two men may have connexion with a woman about the same time, and one of them get her with child. It would not tend to rebut the presumption that the defendant was the one. If the defendant had further proposed to prove that he had had no connexion with the woman…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. . BurtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- State v. . BrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
- State v. . McDonaldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- State v. . RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
- State Ex Rel. Pierce v. WilliamsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1923
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.