THE RUSSELL CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 18975, 28 March 1924, Page 9

THE RUSSELL CASE

INTERESTING ARGUMENT. LONDON, March 26. At the hearing of the Russell appeal before the House of Lords, Mr. Hogg, dealing with the question of the admissibility cf certain evidence given by Russell regarding liis relations with his wife, contended that he was a competent witness. His evidence,was relevant to the issue, and wa< the best evidence, being the direct testimony of one who k. ew what had taken place. After quoting authorities Mr. Hogg discussed the question of the child’s legitimacy, mentioning the old English law, under which a child cannot choose its parents. Thus, if a widow remarried quickly and an infant was born, the child could elect to have either hutband as father.

Lord Dunedin asked: “Is there anything in the case that can be used against the child in proceedings to establish his right of succession?” Mr. Hogg: “Certainly not. The -finding of the jury has nothing to do with tho child. The Only question the Judge left to the jury was whether there had been misconduct with an unknown man. Supposing the child brought proceedings for legitimacy, or claimed hereafter to be Lord Atnpthill, these proceedings will not be evidence.” Lord Dunediirt “It seems to me you would have the extraordinary result that it would be possible in those proceedings to prove bis legitimacy.”

Mr. Hogg: “He can take proceedings under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, or later petition the House of Lords to be summoned as a peerIt will be assumed he is a legitimate son of his father, unless the contrary is proved.” Lord Finlay remarked that tho result was a little grotesque. In the divorce proceedings the verdict was given on the ground that the father of th* child was not tho husband, but in the legitimacy proceeding-? the child succeeds to the title and property on the ground that he was born of the husband. Lord Dunedin: “It comes to this, The child is legitimate in this House, but illegitimate at Eton or Oxford.”