Lenoir County NcArchives Court.....Jesse W. Broadway, Mary Hargett V. 1873
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Guy Potts http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00017.html#0004214 December 5, 2009, 7:39 pm

Source: North Carolina Reports
Written: 1873

State and Mary Hargett v. Jesse W. Broadway

On the trial of issue of bastardy, the impotency of the putative father, if 
true and proven, would be a complete and satisfactory defence; it is therefore 
error in the Judge below to reject any competent evidence, introduced for the 
purpose of proving that the putative father was impotent at the time the child 
is alleged to have been begotten.

Bastardy, tried upon issues, at Fall Term, 1872, of Lenoir Superior Court, 
before Clarke, J.

The case, as settled by counsel, states that in his charge to the jury, "his 
Honor went on to say that they need not inquire whether the defendant, 
Broadway, was able to get a child or not, for the son of the defendant was a 
witness and present in Court, by acknowledging whom, as his own, defendant 
admitted his ability to get a child, to which defendant excepted.

There was a verdict against the defendant, whereupon the defendant appealed to 
the Supreme Court."

Smith & Strong, for the defendant
Attorney General Hargrove, for the State

[NC Supreme Court]
Settle, J. The case settled by counsel is so imperfectly stated as to leave us 
somewhat in doubt as to the facts upon which his Honor gave the charge 
complained of. 

But we take it that upon the trial of an issue of bastardy the defendant 
offered to prove that he was impotent at the time the child was begotten, and 
that his Honor rejected the evidence, and in his charge to the jury said 
that "they need not inquire whether the defendant was able to get a child or 
not, for the son of the defendant was a witness and present in Court, by 
acknowledging whom, as his son, defendant admitted his ability to get a child."

The impotency of the defendant, if true and proven, would have been a complete 
and satisfactory defence to the charge, and it was no answer to that defence 
to say that he had been the father of another child at an earlier period of 
his life.

The age of the son, whom he acknowledged, is not stated, but as he was a 
witness in Court, we are to infer that several years had elapsed between his 
birth and the 20th of September, 1869, when Mary Hargett charged the defendant 
with the paternity of her child, then not born.

It will not do to infer that the vigor and manhood of youth is always an 
attendant upon more advanced years.

There was error
Per Curiam
Venire de novo

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/lenoir/court/jessewbr1234wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 3.0 Kb