Gidley v. Palmerston (Lord), 3 Brod. & B. 275; 7 Moore, 91 Glassington v. Thwaites, 1 Sim. & St. 124; 1 L. J. Ch. 118 Goode v. Harrison, 5 B. & Ald. 147. Heneage v. Andover (Lord), 10 Price, 230, 316 Hewitt v. Morris, Turn. & Russ. 241 Hibbert v. Cooke, 1 Sim. & St. 552 Hodgson v. Gascoigne, 5 B. & Ald. 88 Horwood v. West, 1 Sim. & St. 387; 1 L. J. Ch. 201 Houghton v. Franklin, 1 Sim. & St. 390; 1 L. J. Ch. 231 Howard v. Wright, 1 Sim. & St. 190; 1 L. J. Ch. 94 Hudson v. Granger, 5 B. & Ald. 27. Hughes v. Evans, 1 Sim. & St. 185; 1 L. J. Ch. 129 Humphreys (Doe d.) v. Roberts, 5 B. & Ald. 407 705 39 265 KILSBY v. Williams, 5 B. & Ald. 815; 1 Dowl. & Ry. 476. MAINWARING v. Giles, 5 B. & Ald. 356 417 Marshall v. Queenborough (Corporation of), 1 Sim. & St. 520 220 705 NAYLOR v. Winch, 1 Sim. & St. 555; 2 L. J. Ch. 132 Parmeter v. Attorney-General, 10 Price, 412 Parry v. Wright, 1 Sim. & St. 369; 5 Russ. 142; 1 L. J. Ch. 161. Phillips v. Barber, 5 B. & Ald. 161. Pitt v. Pitt, Turn. & Russ. 180 PAGE 55 325 519 227 504 242 42 74 745 191 487 317 15 v. Cadogan (Earl of), 5 B. & Ald. 902; 1 Dowl. & Ry. 559 - v. Flintshire (Inhabitants of), 5 B. & Ald. 761; 1 Dowl. & Ry. 470 v. St. Austell (Inhabitants of), 5 B. & Ald. 693; 1 Dowl. & Ry. 351 v. Surrey (Justices of), 5 B. & Ald. 539; 1 Dowl. & Ry. 160 534 Spencer (Doe d.) v. Clark, 5 B. & Ald. 458; 1 Dowl. & Ry. 44 West v. Andrews, 5 B. & Ald. 328; 1 B. & C. 77; 2 Dowl. & Ry. 184 394 v. Francis, 5 B. & Ald. 737; 1 Dowl. & Ry. 400 Whatton, Ex parte, 5 B. & Ald. 824 Wigsell v. Smith, 1 Sim. & St. 321; 5 Russ. 299; 1 L. J. v. Price, 1 Sim. & St. 581; 2 L. J. Ch. 103 541 569 NOTE The first and last pages of the original report, according to the paging by which the original reports are usually cited, are noted at the head of each case, and references to the same paging are continued in the margin of the text. Where personal access between husband and wife is established, sexual intercourse is to be presumed; and the presumption must stand till rebutted by clear and satisfactory evidence. [In this case the LORD CHANCELLOR, referring to the case of Rex v. Luffe, said :—] If I rightly understand that case of The King v. Luffe, I take it directly to establish no more than this, that if a *man be proved to have had sexual intercourse with his wife, yet still if it can be shewn that it was impossible that the child of the wife should be his child, it is competent to a party, notwithstanding sexual intercourse between the husband and wife be proved, to establish by evidence the impossibility that such sexual intercourse could bring the child into existence. There is no denying that in what fell from the Judges in that case, there are very strong passages to shew, that beyond that they did not mean to determine how far the old rule of law, as to the husband's being within the four seas, was or was not to be affected. The case of the Banbury Peerage was decided in the House of Lords after very great consideration, and upon that occasion + See post, p. 159. R.R.-VOL. XXIV. 9 R. R. 406 (8 East, 193). B 1823. April 16, 24. Lord ELDON, I..C [138] [139] [ *140] |