Evidence, Relevancy and materiality. Witness, Credibility, Impeachment.
At the trial in the Superior Court of a complaint charging the defendant with being the father of a child of the complainant, who was not his wife, it was proper for the judge to refuse to permit the complainant to be asked on cross-examination, after she had testified that she never had been married, whether she had given birth to other children.
At the trial above described, it was proper for the judge to refuse to permit an attorney at law, who had acted as counsel for the State board of public welfare through the trial in a district court where the complaint had been filed, to be asked "if he had made any investigation as to the complainant's reputation for veracity."
BY THE COURT.
This is a complaint charging the defendant with being the father of a child of a woman who had never married. There was evidence to support the charge. There was no error in excluding the question to the mother whether she had given birth to other children. That had nothing to do with the offence described in the complaint. Easdale v. Reynolds, 143 Mass. 126. Paull v. Padelford, 16 Gray, 263. Inquiry whether a witness called by the Commonwealth had made investigation as to the complainant's reputation for veracity was excluded rightly.
Exception overruled.