[249] Pierson v. People, 18 Hun, 239.
[250] People v. Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126 (1886).
[251] People v. Brower, 53 Hun, 217 (1889). See also People v. Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670.
[252] Johnson v. Johnson, 4 Paige, 460; s. p., 14 Wend., 636; Hanford v. Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468; Hunn v. Hunn, 1 T. & C., 499.
In Indiana, information as to abortion and criminal intimacy is protected in an action for criminal conversation. Harris v. Rupel, 14 Ind., 209. In Hewitt v. Prime, 21 Wend., 77 N. Y. (1839), in an action for seduction the testimony of a physician that he was asked for medicine to produce an abortion was admitted. It was stated that such testimony is not privileged, but there were other reasons for the judgment, and the case seems to be at variance with later decisions on that principle.
See also Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich., 34.
[253] Allen v. Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221 (1850).
[254] Staunton v. Parker, 19 Hun, 55 (1879).
[255] Citing the fact that no objection was raised in the noted case of Delafield v. Parish, 25 N. Y., 1.
[256] Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573 (1886), followed in Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239 (1888). In re Hannah, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1887). In matter of Connor (Sup. Ct., G. T.), 27 N. Y. St. Rep., 905 (1889); Mason v. Williams (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1889), 6 N. Y. Supp., 479; Van Orman v. Van Orman (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1890), 34 N. Y. St. Rep., 824. See also In matter of Halsey (N. Y. Surr.), 29 N. Y. St. Rep., 533 (1890). Allen v. Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221, had been overruled in part by Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185 (1876), but not on this point.