As there are no facts tending to show, and, so far as-we discover, there is no claim made, that, though illegitimate born, Charles Fitzgerald was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents, the real question on trial before the court below was whether Charles Fitzgerald was the legitimate son of John Fitzgerald and his first wife, in the sense of having been born in lawful wedlock. In favor of an affirmative answer to this question there was — First,. the testimony of two witnesses, swearing that John Fitzgerald told them that Charles was his son by his first wife. This, in common parlance, would be understood to mean that Charles was his son by his first wife as wife, or, in other words, that he was their legitimate son. Such would also be its prima facie meaning in law. Wilkinson v. Adam, 1 Ves. & B. 422; Caujolle v. Ferrie, 23 N. Y. 90. There was also the testimony of several other witnesses that John Fitzgerald for many years recognized and treated Charles as his son, as did also his second wife. Second, the evidence being very cogent that Charles was the son of John Fitzgerald, there is the presumption that he was his legitimate son; and there being evidence (from the declaration of John Fitzgerald) that he was the son of him (John) and of the woman who was his first wife, there is the further presumption that he was born in lawful wedlock. And these presumptions
Order reversed.