[175]. Dr. Stanger had before made an unsuccessful application to this Court. He had obtained a rule calling on the president and fellows of the college to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue “commanding them to admit him to examination for admission into the class or order of candidates for election into the society or fellowship of the said college.” But as Dr. Stanger had presented himself to the comitia minora to be examined, which court is constituted by one of the bye-laws with power only to examine candidates of a certain description within which Dr. Stanger did not come, this Court in Easter term 1796 discharged the rule for the mandamus; saying that it did not appear that Dr. Stanger had a right to be examined by the comitia minora; but that if he had any title as being one of the homines facultatis under the charter, he should apply to the body at large. The Court also intimated at that time a strong opinion that the bye-laws were reasonable and valid.
[176]. V. 1 Salk. 193 S. C.
[177]. N. B. Mr. Nourse was in fact a very good Scholar.
[178]. 2 Wils. 359.
[179]. In the close of the first book of Paulus Zacchias’s famous Quæstiones Medicolegales, there is a full discussion of the point of filiation, as between two husbands, where a woman soon after the death of her first husband marries a second. The question is raised in these words. “Filius mulieris, quæ illico ab obitu conjugis alteri nupsit, et novem decemve mensium spatio peperit; cujusdam præsumi debeat.” See Paul. Zacch. lib. 1. tit. 5 quæstio ultima. The same point is investigated in the learned treatise by Alphonsus a Caranza, De Partu Naturali et Legitimo. See cap. 26. s. 71. The first book of Paulus Zacchias, who was a physician at Rome, first came out in 1621. The tract by Alphonsus a Caranza was first published about five years afterwards.
[180]. The book here cited is a collection of adjudications in the supreme court of Friesland. The author was Johannes a Sande, who was himself a senator of that court. An improved edition of the book came out in 1656. The particular case above cited was adjudged 27th October, 1617. What increases the latitude of the decision for the legitimacy is, that the husband was for some time a valetudinarian, and for 14 days before his death confined to his bed. The book being probably rare amongst English lawyers, and the arguments in the case comprising very ancient and curious research in a moderate compass on the ultimum tempus pariendi for women, the whole of Sande’s report of the case will be given in a note at the end of the present article.
[181]. 27. Octobris. Anno 1634.
[182]. See the case of Carrascola, the Neapolitan Admiral.
[183]. For a curious argument on this case see one of the subsequent pamphlets in Howell.
Transcriber’s Note