State v. Ingram

• Decision Date: 30 November 1816
• Citation: 5 Tenn. 221
• Parties: THE STATE v. AARON INGRAM.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

5 Tenn. 221

THE STATE

v.AARON INGRAM.

Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of Tennessee.

November Term, 1816.

The evidence of the woman, in cases of bastardy, under 1741, 14, 10, is conclusive as to the person to be charged with maintenance of the child. (Modified by statute, Code, 5354, et seq.)

A single woman charged Ingram on oath, before two justices, as the father of a child she was then pregnant with. He was taken and bound by the County Court to perform such orders as the Court should make relatively thereto. The woman married a third person before the child was born. He appealed to the Circuit Court, who discharged him from his bond. Upon which there was an appeal to this court which was now argued by counsel on both sides.

Whyte and Haywood, JJ. Roane, J., gave no opinion.

The evidence of the woman is conclusive as to the person to be charged with maintenance of the child. 1741, c. 14, section 10, upon her oath, “Such person so accused, shall be adjudged the reputed father of such child or children, and stand charged with the maintenance,” &c. The person so charged is undeniably fixed. He can never be received to aver the contrary. He is estopped by the judgment of the law, declaring him to be the father. If an issue be made up and the jury find he is not the father, still he is so in legal contemplation. The fact is ascertained by the proper tribunal, the two justices. Any other authorities not constituted for the purpose by the law of 1741 have no right to interfere. The Court has no right to submit to a jury any but this conclusive testimony, if indeed a jury could be called on to try the question. Can it be permitted to overturn a conclusive adjudication by testimony of inferior dignity? When another tribunal and trial not designated by law shall have established a contrary fact; namely, that the person accused is not the father, who then is to maintain the child? There is none left but the public, and thus the very object of the law is defeated. No contrary evidence or other trial of any sort can establish the position that the person so charged is not the father.It is argued that the person who marries the woman before the birth of the child is to be reputed the father. This is legal presumption which remains until the contrary be established by proof. The prior legal adjudication that the person accused is the father is not liable to be disproved by evidence of a contrary tendency. It is legally adjudged already,...