The opinion of the court was delivered by
We think the motion of the defendant to dismiss his own exceptions is without foundation. The grounds, upon which the motion is based, are, that the plaintiff has intermarried since the case came into this court, and that the husband has neglected to join with the wife in the prosecution of the suit by an entry оf their names on the docket of the court, on or before the third day of the term next aftеr the marriage. The statute — Rev. St. 329— provides, that, if a woman shall commence an actiоn, or suit, and marry before final judgment, the suit shall notábate, but the husband may prosecute the suit with her, by giving bonds for сosts of prosecution and entering their names upon the docket. If this be not done, the defendant may file a certificate of the marriage and have judgment-against them for his cоsts.
If it be assumed, that the statute extends to a proceeding like this, while pending in the county cоurt, — which I am led to doubt,
We see no ground of error in the proсeedings of the county court on the trial. It is claimed, that the county court erred, in not permitting the plaintiff to be asked the question, whether she had not consulted a physician in reference to procuring an abortion. It is quite obvious, that to have allowed the inquiry would have been imprоper. Let the question have been answered as it might have been, the answer could have had no tendency either to have proved or disproved the fact, whether the defendant was the father of the child, or not, — which was the point at issue. If there were no other rеason, why the question should not have been asked, this was sufficient. Certainly, it could not be claimеd as proper matter by way of impeaching the witness.
It is claimed, that the county court erred in permitting evidence to be given of the general good character of the plaintiff for truth and veracity It appears from the case, that the defendant had given in evidence the declarations of the complainant, which went to show, that some other рerson than the defendant was the father of the child. This was inconsistent with her testimony on the stand, and had the effect to impeach her as a witness, upon the ground that she had given a differеnt relation, in regard to the paternity of the child, from the one given on the stand. It was held in the case of State v. Roe,
Some other questions were made on the trial; but we do not deem them of sufficient imрortance to occupy any time.
In regard to the denial, by the county court, of a review of the cause, it may be said, that the statute has received but one practicаl construction; and that has been in unison with the ruling of the county court. This cannot be regarded аs an action, within the purview of the statute, allowing either party once to review his cаuse. The object of this proceeding is to procure an order of filiation upon thе putative father, and thus compel him to aid the mother in the support of the child, — and not to recover a sum in damages, for any independent claim, which she may have against the father.
The result, then, is, the judgment of the county court is affirmed.