Totman v. Forsaith

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Totman v. Forsaith

55 Me. 360

DecidedJuly 1, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 55 Me. 360 (Totman v. Forsaith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Totman v. Forsaith, 55 Me. 360 (Me. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Appleton, C. J.

The statute relating to "Bastard Children and their maintenance,” c. 97, requires that the complainant, " being put, on the discovery of the truth during the time of her travail,” should accuse the person charged "of being the father of the child,” and should remain "constant in such accusation.” It is not necessary that the accusation should have been in answer to any inquiry by others, nor that she should expressly declare in the time of her travail that the respondent was the father of the child; if in any form she should intelligibly mention the fact, it is an accusation within the statute. McManagil v. Ross, 20 Pick., 99; Bailey v. Chesley, 10 Cush., 285.

In her accusation and examination before the magistrate, she is required to state " the time and place when and where the child was begotten, as correctly as they can be described.” The complainant is not to be examined as to " the time and place,” during the pangs of child-birth, nor is she required to do more at that time than to accuse the respondent of being father of the child. This she did, and, having so done, has fully complied with the requirements of the statute. Exceptions overruled.

Cutting, Kent, Walton, Dickerson, Danforth and Tablet, JJ., concurred.

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

Appleton, C. J.

The statute relating to "Bastard Children and their maintenance,” c. 97, requires that the complainant, " being put, on the discovery of the truth during the time of her travail,” should accuse the person charged "of being the father of the child,” and should remain "constant in such accusation.” It is not necessary that the accusation should have been in answer to any inquiry by others, nor that she should expressly declare in the time of her travail that the respondent was the father of the child; if in any form she should intelligibly mention the fact, it is an accusation within the statute. McManagil v. Ross, 20 Pick., 99; Bailey v. Chesley, 10 Cush., 285.

In her accusation and examination before the magistrate, she is required to state " the time and place when and where the child was begotten, as correctly as they can be described.” The complainant is not to be examined as to " the time and place,” during the pangs of child-birth, nor is she required to do more at that time than to accuse the respondent of being father of the child. This she did, and, having so done, has fully complied with the requirements of the statute. Exceptions overruled.

Cutting, Kent, Walton, Dickerson, Danforth and Tablet, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 Me. 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/totman-v-forsaith-me-1868.