BLOOD TEST

Evening Post, Issue 50, 27 August 1935, Page 17

BLOOD TEST

IN PATERNITY CASE

: Aii affiliation order case which had been adjourned in order: that the parties could undergo: a-blood test was before the Brentford- Bench recently, Victor "Walter. WaU,,2ly of\Teddington, being summoned; l by: Miss- Dorothy Kathleen Mordell,'agedVeighteen^/^cf Whitton, in respect of a'cliild,;says':t)ie "Daily -.Telegraph." ; > - :;■":-•,; ri v :'^v

Defendant denied the .paternity,:and at the- previous hearing both, parties agreed to undergo a: blood test. -Tnese tests vve're carried out by.-Df;.;H.';l\ Brewer, of Harley. Street. ,"""', : ■ i.. The chairman of the Bench, Mr. j\v'j. Charlton, stated that in forwarding: the report, Dr. Brewer, said:— ','„ ■~,.:

; "The value of such tests lies MVthe exclusion of an alleged father, and-not incrimination. : In this particullr; case it is not possible to exclude MrVvWail as being the father: but he. cdaaoi be incriminated from'a bibod group 'test alone, sincewith" the blood group" cphibihatioh' of Miss' Mordell and iifer! <ihild the father' could be 'another' Group' 2 (A)'or Group 3 (B) or 4'(P)." '■' v

: ,The report was as follows:—' "vi '■''. '■- . Mr.; W. B. Wall; Mbss clas'sifida'tiba 2, International class JLC:-/..'Z '' .:-\>

" Miss Mordell: Moss classification'-2. International class A. -Child: Moss classificatioa 4, International class 0.

The blood group result has bee>i verified by serum, agglutinum tests as well as corpuscle and grdup agglutinegens.

," Conclusion: The blood group "te^t indicates that it is possible for WaU tor have been the father of,the'child, but he cannot "be definitely incriminated as such. : • The: mating- of two Group 2 (A) parents may result j/i offspring of Group 2 (A) or 4 (0). The child is Group.4.(o).

. In the blood, group- combination;'of Miss Mordeil arid her ; child 'the father might be Group 2 (A), 3 (B) or 4 40). The ■ evidence Wall, 1 is therefore inconclusive. \

Mr. Wilfred Eirth, for Miss Mordeil, said the report did not prove that the defendant was not; the father of the child, but showed that "he could "be the father.- -. • :■■--•-.. ...... ; : . ■/■

■.; -'Mr.^S. I. Cohen, Jot Wall, said-he regretted the nature; of the test but.he had-asked for it to help the: Court. No test could be absolutelyconclusive, ..bufthe; fact"that it was. inconclusive- was ;in his favour rather than against.;:: vln so far as it showed reasonable doubt the defendant should 'have the benefit....'

~The chairman said-the Bench had ;decided to make an order against Wall of Is 6d a week, with three guinea* COStS; .•.:.-:■■••.. .