122 



The Journal of Heredity 



it is evident that it is while the child is 

 still below two years that it is most 

 necessary that the parentage should be 

 established so that the child shall be 

 supported. Since the objections of the 

 court are solely based on the uncer- 

 tainty of determination by mere inspec- 

 tion, there is every reason to believe 

 that should a method be developed that 

 would make the determination possible 

 from birth onward, that the courts 

 would interpose no objection. 



However, we have so far considered 

 the admissibility of the child itself as an 

 exhibit. There remains the question 

 of the admissibility of the opinion of 

 persons as to the alleged resemblance. 

 In two cases photographs^ have been 

 admitted, but the courts have been 

 very reluctant to admit the judgment 

 of witnesses,'* and the preponderance of 

 the decisions is against their admission. 

 Yet we have three cases in which there 

 is clear discrimination as to the ability 

 of witnesses to reach an opinion of value. 

 I shall quote the language of the courts 

 in these cases, Clark vs. Bradstreet, 

 80 Me., 454: "The testimony of 

 witnesses where they have no special 

 skill or knowledge in such matters has 

 never been admitted in the state 

 (Maine)." Eddy vs. Gray, 4 Allen, 438. 

 "The evidence she offered as to the 

 supposed resemblance of the child to the 

 defendant was properly rejected. It is 

 not of the kind which comes within the 

 rule in relation to the testimony of 

 experts upon questions of science or of 

 skill or of knowledge acquired b}^ some 



peculiar experience or education. The 

 witness called did not profess to have 

 any special skill upon the subject of 

 inquiry." Keniston vs. Rowe, 16 Me., 

 38. "Witnesses who have had sight of 

 the persons might be indefinitely multi- 

 plied, without affording any satisfactory, 

 ground of judgment for a jury. Wit- 

 nesses except in some art, trade or pro- 

 fession requiring peculiar skill and 

 science are not called to form compari- 

 sons and to testify to opinions arising 

 from them." 



It is quite evident therefore that 

 the court has already laid the ground 

 for real expert testimony on this sub- 

 ject when methods that yield reliable 

 results shall have been elaborated. 

 The reasons why the elaboration of 

 such methods would be so desirable 

 are the following: (1) The number 

 of illegitimate children will be cut 

 down, if the prospective father knows 

 that his paternity can be detected 

 and the support of the child fastened 

 upon him. Second, the care of the 

 child would be very much better and 

 hence its mortality risk appreciably 

 reduced. This we may conclude from 

 the well-known contrast between the 

 death rate of illegitimate and legitimate 

 children, most of which must be attrib- 

 uted to the better support of the latter 

 class. Having, then, seen the great 

 need for such a method, let us examine 

 our knowledge of heredity to see whether 

 such a method is feasible. 



There are four distinct methods that 

 might be employed, and while the 



^ Photograph was admitted and bearing on resemblance. 



State vs. Patterson, 100 N. W., 162. 



Shorter vs. Judd, 42 Pac, 337. 

 '' State vs. Woodruff, 67 B. C, 89. (It allows all persons to testify to such identity or to such 

 resemblance who have had an opportunity of seeing the persons, if but for an instant.) 



Douglas Peerage Case, House of Lords, 1769. 



Day vs. Day, Huntington Assize, 1797. 



Paulk vs. State, 52 Ala., 427. (The defendant may prove that the child bears no likeness to 

 'him or that it resembles another man who had opportunity of illicit intercourse with the mother.) 



Jones vs. Jones, 45 Mary, 151. (1876.) 



Keniston vs. Rowe, 16 Maine, 38. 



Eddy vs. Gray, 4 Allen, 435. 



W. Caiman vs. State, 49 S. E., 612. 



Shorter vs. Judd, 42 Pacific, 337. 



Hanawalt vs. State, 64 Wis., 84. 



Keniston vs. Rowe, 16 Mo., 38. 



Young vs. Makepeace, 103 Mass., 50. (We think also that the testimony to show points of 

 similarity between the child and the parent should not have been admitted; even where there is a 

 noticeable resemblance there may be equally marked points of dissimilarity.) 



