Penfield v. Norton

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Penfield v. Norton

1 Root 345

DecidedDecember 15, 1791

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 345 (Penfield v. Norton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Penfield v. Norton, 1 Root 345 (Colo. 1791).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Manifest error. That the child was horn, is a necessary averment in a prosecution of this nature, before trial. And as the complaint in such cases is often commenced before the child is horn, and the man taken and bound to answer before the County Court upon it, yet the court will continue the cause until the child is horn, and then allow the complainant to add that fact by way of supplement to her [346]*346complaint. That the mother must be examined touching who the father is, was determined upon a.writ of error, at Litch-field August A. D. 1772, in the case of Elisha Truman v. Rachel Sachet.

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

By the Court.

Manifest error. That the child was horn, is a necessary averment in a prosecution of this nature, before trial. And as the complaint in such cases is often commenced before the child is horn, and the man taken and bound to answer before the County Court upon it, yet the court will continue the cause until the child is horn, and then allow the complainant to add that fact by way of supplement to her [346]*346complaint. That the mother must be examined touching who the father is, was determined upon a.writ of error, at Litch-field August A. D. 1772, in the case of Elisha Truman v. Rachel Sachet.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penfield-v-norton-conn-1791.