So far Lord Coke only puts a special case barely involving a consideration of the legal time for a woman’s going with child.
But in a subsequent part of his commentary, Lord Coke brings forward an adjudged case of 18 E. 1. which materially involved considering what was the limit to the time for a woman’s parturition, and for which he refers to _Trin._ 18 _E._ 1. _Rot._ 61. _Bedford coram rege_; and so Lord Coke was led to giving his own idea of the latest legitimate time _pariendi_ for women. The passages here meant to be adverted to are in Co. Litt. 123. b. and are in these words. “It was found by verdict, that Henry the son of Beatrice, which was the wife of Robert Radwell deceased, was born _per undecim dies post ultimum tempus legitimum mulieribus constitutum_. And therefore it was adjudged, _quòd dictus Henricus dici non debet filius prædicti Roberti secundùm legem et consuetudinem Angliæ constitutus_. Now _legitimum tempus_ in that case appointed by law at the furthest is nine months or forty weeks: but she may be delivered before that time. Which judgment I thought good to mention. And this agreeth with that in Esdras: _Vade et interroga prægnantem si quando impleverit novem menses suos, adhuc poterit matrix ejus retinere partum in semetipsâ? et dixi non potest, Domine_.” In the margin of the last passage of this extract from Co. Litt. 123. b. there is a reference to 4 Esdras 4. 41. and Panciroll. Nova Reporta, pag. 485, &c.
These two extracts from Co. Litt. 8. a. and 123. b. are here given as an introduction to the following article, which consists of two notes by the author in the first part of the 13th edition of the Coke upon Littleton, being the author’s part of that edition, and the first attempt at editing that ever to be valued work with notes.—Both the notes are on the second of the two preceding extracts from the Coke upon Littleton.—The first of the two notes chiefly relates, to the special case of a widow’s marrying a second husband, and being delivered of a child so soon after the death of her first husband, as to raise a doubt, which of the two husbands should be considered as the father: and so far such note applies as well to the case so put in Co. Litt. 8. a. from the year-book of 21 E. 3. 39. as to the case in 18 E. 1. so stated in Co. Litt. 123. b. from the king’s bench record of that year.—The second of the two notes relates to the general point as to the ultimate legitimate time for a woman’s parturition.