Sherman v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a complaint, under the statute, charging the defendant as the father of the plaintiff’s bastard child. Plea, not guilty, with notice of special matter of defence.
Read the full summary
This was a complaint, under the statute, charging the defendant as the father of the plaintiff’s bastard child. Plea, not guilty, with notice of special matter of defence. The complaint was dated February 27, 1845. The overseer of the poor of the town of Fays-ton, where the plaintiff had her legal settlement at the date of the complaint, filed in the county court, November Term, 1845, a certificate, under the statute, that he should control the prosecution, in behalf of the town; — and the prosecution was afterwards conducted by him. Trial by jury, April Term, 1846, — Redfield, J., presid- On…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
The first question made in this case is, whether the plaintiff is a competent witness to impeach her own discharge, on the trial of a case like the present. It seems very clear to us, that she is not. The statute of 1822 provided, “ That on the trial of the issue of whether chargeable or not, such woman shall be a competent witness.” The expression of the Revised Statute is, “On the trial of the issue, whether the defendant is guilty or not.” We suppose both forms of language were intended to express the same idea. And the mother being…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Billingsley v. ClellandWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- Burr v. PharesWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1917
- Hale v. TurnerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1857