case HILIARD against phaly and other to prove that a woman be marry antecedent  to the birth of her child cohabitation reputation and other circumstance may  be give in evidence but a answer give in chancery by the mother respect this  fact be not admissible during her life for she may be examine to it viva voice  nor be proceed in the spiritual court admissible a trial at bar on a issue  direct out of the court of chancery the question be whether Mr Hiliard the  plaintiff brother who be seize in fee of the land in question of the yearly  value of six hundred pound be marry to Sarah phaly the mother and guardian of  the defendant before such a day which be his birthday there be three other  issue to the same purpose she have three other son modern report er p the  defendant the infant by his mother and guardian plead that the say Mr Hiliard  be marry to her before the birth of any of the defendant upon which plea they  be at issue so that the plea be in the affirmative the proof be upon the  defendant which be as follow it be say by their counsel that this plea be in  favour of legitimation in such case cohabitation have always be allow to be  good evidence see may v may bull n p saint Peter Worcester v old Swinford burr  S c a it be in proof that Mr Hiliard cohabit with this woman above twenty year  that in such a year c he come with her out of Lincolnshire to London and lodge  in wile street where they be marry by a priest who serve the Portugal  ambassador and it be prove that such a priest be about that time chaplain to  the ambassador that Mr Hiliard be a Roman catholic and for that reason there  be no body present at the marriage or who can prove that she be actual marry  beside herself in Lord Valentia case adjudge in the house of lord April where  the question be whether the earl of anglesea be marry to the countess dowager  of anglesea on the September prior to the birth of Lord Valentia their son who  be bear in the year the countess dowager have no interest be admit a witness  to prove the fact of the marriage cite by Lord Mansfield in the case of  Goodright v moss Cowp see also Stapleton v Stapleton atk a but there be  sufficient evidence that he acknowledge she be his wife and desire the witness  to use her as such and that on the day of his death and but a few hour before  he die he declare in the presence of his physician and several other who be  now produce as witness that he be marry to her on the other side it be admit  that this be a favourable issue because it be to support legitimation but it  be to be favour only where the matter be doubtful to the court and to the jury  and not where there be such clear proof to the contrary that there can be no  room to doubt modern report the proof be that Mr Hiliard take this woman long  since to be his housekeeper that soon afterward she be with child and that  both of they go to London to avoid prosecution in the spiritual court but yet  after the birth of three of these child he be prosecute in that court for  fornication with this woman and that sentence be give against he and penance  enjoin and that he actual pay the commutation money that be order his servant  not to call her mistress but by her proper name and that he frequent tell his  neighbour and some of his most intimate acquaintance that he be never marry to  this woman then the parson of the parish depose that he know this woman ever  since she first become a servant to Mr Hiliard and that he always take her to  be his concubine and not his wife but to obviate the parson evidence there be  a letter produce under his hand in very endear word and expression wherein he  assure her that if she will marry he then he will assist her to baffle all the  attempt of her enemy to disprove her marriage with Mr Hiliard and be ask by  the chief justice what can induce he to write such a letter if be take her to  be a servant and a concubine the parson answer that great man than he have  marry servant Lord chief justice Pratt who ask he the question marry his maid  servant which the parson it be suppose hint at note to the former edition b it  be far prove on the plaintiff side that upon the death of Mr Hiliard this  woman get into her custody all the write concern the inheritance of these land  and upon a bill in chancery exhibit against her to discover the same she  answer that she be marry to Mr Hiliard about three year before he die and so  insist to keep the write this answer be now offer to be give in evidence but  it be oppose on the other side for though it may be conclusive against herself  if she pretend to any dower or to a jointure yet it can be give in evidence  against a three person not derive any title under her and the court be of that  opinion the answer be not read then they offer to give the proceed in the  spiritual court in evidence modern report er p but that be likewise deny  because what be do in the spiritual court can be evidence at commonlaw where  the title of land be in question so the jury give a verdict for the defendant  modern report but the Lord chancellor think it hard that such evidence have be  reject for as to the answer in chancery he say that it be plain where there be  any confidence or trust between the party the confession of one in a answer c  may be give in evidence against the other though it may be a question whether  such evidence be conclusive or not see the case of Goodright v moss where it  be decide that general declaration or the answer of a parent in chancery be  good evidence after the death of such parent to prove that a child be bear  before marriage but not to prove that a child bear in wedlock be a bastard  Cowp a then as to the proceed in the spiritual court admit there have be a  marriage in this case and they have afterward be divorce for consanguinity or  affinity such sentence of divorce will have be conclusive evidence to  bastardize the child bear in wedlock before the divorce and what can be better  evidence in a court of law to show there be no marriage than a sentence in the  spiritual court carry on in a regular suit and pronounce in the lifetime of  the party that they be guilty of fornication and the proof of the  commutationmoney pay by the suppose father modern report michaelmas term the  ten of George the first in the king bench sir John Pratt Knt chief justice sir  Littleton powys Knt sir Robert Eyre Knt sir John fortescue aland Knt justice  sir Robert Raymond Knt attorneygeneral sir Philip York Knt solicitor general