P U N I S H M E N T S .
child, and
fubfequent
denial.
parentage of the child has been eftablilhed in him by his previous
acknowledgment, and-by his; fubfequent denial an accufation is im.
plied with refpedt to his wife, who is the mother of the child;', he
mult therefore make Ladn. But if he Should firfi deny the child',
and afterwards acknowledge it, in this cafe punilhment for Jlandev is
to be inflidted upon him, becaufe when he thus falfifies, Loan is prevented,
as Ladn is a fort of punilhment impofed from the necefiity of
the cafe,. owing to a mutual fallification * , in which punilhment for
flander is the original thing, and hence, in a cafe where the mutual
fallification is done away +, that which is the original mull be put in
force. The parentage alfo of the child is eftablilhed in this man, in
both thefe cafes, fince he has acknowledged it, whether fuch acknowledgment
be made before denial, as in the former inftance, or after
denial, as. in. the latter.
O b j e c t io n .— In the former inftance, upon Ladn becoming incumbent,
it lhauld follow that the parentage of the child is not eftablilhed.
R e p l y .— Baftardy is not a neeeflary confequence of Ladn, for
Ladn may be impofed without baftardizing the child, in the lame
manner as where a man denies a child after a long lapfe of time from
the period of the birth, in which cafe Ladn is incumbent, and the
child is not baftardized, but its parentage remains eftablilhed ;— as, on
the contrary, a child may be baftardized in a cale in which Ladn is
not incumbent; as where a hulband denies a child born of his wife,
who is a Have, in which cafe the child is baftardized, but Loan is not
incumbent J.
* W h ere the wife denies the hufband’ s afiertion, end die hulband denies the chaft'ity-
o f his wife.
f B y one o f the parties confefling the other to be in the r ig h t ; as the hufband here
does,, by acknowledging the child after having denied it..
X Ow in g to the wife being a JZave*.
If
If a man were to fay to his wife “ This is neither my child, nor
“ yet yours," in this cafe Ladn is not incumbent, nor is punilhment
for flander due, as the hulband here merely denies the child being bom
of his wife, and a hulband is not a flanderer by fuch denial.
If a man accufe of whoredoin a woman, who has children, the
father of whom is unknown,f—or i f he Ihould fo accufe a woman
who has made Ladn, in confequence of any of her children having
been denied [by her hulband],, whether fuch children be living or
not,— in neither of thefe cafes is punilhment for flander incurred, becaufe
t h figns of whoredom are found with the woman, namely her
children, who are without any acknowledged father: the reputation
of this woman is therefore queftionable, on account of thefe figns;
and perfect chafity o f repute in the accufed is one condition of punilhment
for flander being incurred by the accufer. But if a man were to
accufe of whoredom a woman who has made Ladn in confequence
of an imputation of adultery made againft her by her hulband, and
not on account of his denial of her children, in this cafe punilhment
for flander is to be inflicted upon the accufer, fince here no figns of
whoredom are found with the woman.
If a man have unlawful commerce with a woman in whom he
has no right of cohabitation * , punilhment for flander is not to be inflicted
upon his accufer, becaufe chafity o f repute is not applicable to
the accufed, (and this is conditional to his being married, in the fenfe
which induces punilhment for flander upon the accufer,)— and alio,
becaufe the accufer in this inftance fpeaks truly.
I t is to be obferved as a rule, that punilhment for flander is not
incurred by the accufation of any perfon guilty of lueh a carnal coir-
* T h ere are many cafes' o f this defcription which do not amount to whoredom,. as may
be feen under the head o f Erroneous Connexion,. See.
Accufation of
a woman who
has children
deftitute of
any acknowledged
father
is not Jlandev;
Accufation-
againft a per«-
fon who has
unlawful
commerce
with a womanis
notJlanden-y
under certain-
reftri&ions..
juifetioDi