Commonwealth v. Rosenblatt

219 Mass. 197
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 6, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 219 Mass. 197 (Commonwealth v. Rosenblatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Rosenblatt, 219 Mass. 197 (Mass. 1914).

Opinion

Rxtgg, C. J.

At the trial of the defendant, upon this complaint which charged him with failing to contribute reasonably to the support of an illegitimate child, the mother, a married woman, was allowed to testify that her husband had deserted her more than three years before the child was begotten, that she had not seen him since and that the defendant was the father of the child. There was also some evidence tending to show that the husband whs in Europe.

It has been said that apart from statute parents are not permitted to give testimony to make spurious the issue of the mother born in lawful wedlock. Abington v. Duxbury, 105 Mass. 287, 290. Koffman v. Koffman, 193 Mass. 593. See Legge v. Edmonds, 25 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 125, 135. But St. 1913, c. 563, upon which this complaint is founded, by § 6 adopts the “practice” established by St. 1911, c. 456. Section 7 of the latter act provides that “both husband and wife shall be competent witnesses to testify against each other to any and all relevant matters, including the fact of their marriage and the parentage of the child or children.” “Practice” as thus used is broad enough to include special rules as to evidence. Therefore the statute permits a mother, although married, to testify, in a proceeding under St. 1913, c. 563, to which the husband is not a party, that some other man is the father of her child.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Symonds v. Symonds
432 N.E.2d 700 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1982)
Commonwealth v. Pizzimente
306 N.E.2d 279 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1974)
Commonwealth v. Leary
185 N.E.2d 641 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
Sayles v. Sayles
80 N.E.2d 21 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
McLaughlin v. Municipal Court of Roxbury District
32 N.E.2d 266 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Commonwealth v. Kitchen
11 N.E.2d 482 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Commonwealth v. Circo
199 N.E. 896 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Adams v. Adams
148 A. 287 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1930)
Commonwealth v. Reilly
248 Mass. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Commonwealth v. Callaghan
223 Mass. 150 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
219 Mass. 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-rosenblatt-mass-1914.