
    Commonwealth vs. Edward Hunt.
    Middlesex.
    December 6, 1922.
    December 7, 1922.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., De Courcy, Crosby, Pierce, & Carroll, JJ.
    
      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.”
    Complaint, received and sworn to in the District Court of Lowell on May 8, 1922, charging the defendant with being the father of a child born to the complainant, not the wife of the defendant, on March 23, 1922.
    On appeal to the Superior Court, there was a trial before Hammond, J. The complainant testified as to the circumstances of intercourse with the defendant and answered in the negative a question asked by the district attorney, "if she had had intercourse with any man between May and August, 1921, except the defendant.” The judge, subject to an exception by. the defendant, refused to permit her to be asked in cross-examination after she had testified that she never had been married, “if she had given birth to any other children.”
    The judge also, subject to an exception by the defendant, refused to permit an attorney at law, who, as counsel for the State board of public welfare, had prosecuted the case through the district court, to be asked on cross-examination “if he had made any investigation as to the complainant’s reputation for veracity.”
    The defendant was found guilty, and alleged exceptions.
    The case was submitted on briefs.
    
      M. Collingwood, for the defendant.
    
      E. P. Saltonstall, District Attorney, & L. Saltonstall, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
   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.

Exceptions overruled.  