ACCESS. Approach, or the means or pow er of approaching.
Sometimes by access is understood sexual inter course ; at other times, the opportunity of commu nicating together so that sexual intercourse may have taken place, is also called access.
In this sense a man who can readily be in com pany with his wife is said to have access to her ; and in that case her issue are presumed to be his issue. But this presumption may be rebutted by positive evidence that no sexual intercourse took place; 1 Turn. & H. 141.
Parents are not allowed to prove non-ac cess for the purpose of bastardizing the issue of the wife, whether the action be civil or criminal, or whether the proceeding is one of settlement or bastardy, or to recover prop erty claimed as heir at law; Bull. N. P. 113 ; Bowles v. Bingham, 2 Munf. (Va.) 442, 5 Am. Dec. 497; State v. Pettaway, 10 N. C. 623 ; Cross v. Cross, 3 Pai. Ch. (N. Y.) 139, 23 Am. Dec. 778; Mink v. State, 60 Wis. 584, 19 N. W. 445, 50 Am. Rep. 386; Bell v.
Territory, 8 Okl. 75, 56 Pac. 853; State v. Lavin, 80 Ia. 555, 46 N. W. 553; Egbert v. Greenwalt, 44 Mich. 245, 6 N. W. 654, 38 Am. Rep. 266; Tioga County v. South Creek Township, 75 Pa. 436, where the common law rule was applied in an extreme case, and was held not to be affected by the stat ute abolishing the disqualification of parties by reason of interest. The rule has been held to be modified by statutes; Evans v. State, 165 Ind. 369, 74 N. E. 244, 75 N. E. 651, 6 Ann. Cas. 813, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 619 (where the cases are collected in a note) ; State v. McDowell, 101 N. C. 734, 7 S. E. 785, which changes the rule as laid down in Boykin v. Boykin, 70 N. C. 263, 16 Am. Rep. 776.
Non-access is not presumed from the mere fact that husband and wife lived aptrt ; 1 Gale & D. 7. See 3 C. & P. 215 ; 1 Sim. & S. 153 ; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 28.
In Canon Law. The right to some bene fice at some futUre time.