Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/439

 Nor will our own law, notwithstanding what Lord Coke advances, if the authorities are duly collected and considered, be found deficient on this interesting subject. Indeed there is a passage in Britton, which gives countenance to Lord Coke's limitation of forty weeks; for this writer excludes from the inheritance posthumous children not born within forty weeks from the husband's death. Britt. 166. a. However, even this writer seems to extend in some degree beyond the forty weeks; unless he meant to make the wife's conception exactly of equal date with the husband's death, which surely is not a very reasonable construction. But without dwelling on such a nicety, it is sufficient, that the principal of the few other authorities in our books are against so rigid a rule. Bracton is very cautious, illegitimatizing only the issue born so long after the husband's death, as to create an improbability of its being his child, without naming any fixed period. Bract. lib. 5. fo. 417. b.

As to the determined cases in our courts, the only authorities of this sort, we meet with, are enumerated in the preceding annotation; and these, duly weighed, will not be found, it is apprehended, to warrant Lord Coke's conclusion.—In Radwell's case, the finding against the issue is expressed to have been grounded merely on presumption; and besides, if we construe the record properly, the presumption arose from proof of the husband's non-access to the wife a month before his death,—The case of 9 E. 2. is an instance of allowing so much time beyond forty weeks, that it seems too strong to have much weight; but so far as it can claim any, it counts against Lord Coke.—The case of 18 Rich. 2. at first seems full for Lord Coke's rule, the child, though born only eleven days beyond the forty weeks, having been declared not the issue of the deceased husband. But when it is further considered, there will be found nothing to prove a positive general rule; for the case was very special, the widow having married a second husband the day after the death of the first, so that the question was not of legitimacy, but merely to which husband the issue be