In a trial for rape of a female under six teen years, her testimony as to her age was held competent; Com. v. Phillips, 162 Mass. 504, 39 N. E. 109; but a conviction for se duction under the age of eighteen could not be maintained when the oral evidence of the girl was contradicted by the church record of her birth on which she had stated her evidence was based ; State v. Cougot, 121 Mo. 458, 26 S. W. 566.
A statement in a will that testator's daugh ter was born on a certain day is admissible; 3 Yo. & Coll. Ex. 82; and in 2 R. & Myl. 169, a person's age was proved by the declara tions of a deceased relative.
The federal census returns have been held admissible on the question of 'age; Priddy v. Boice, 201 Mo. 309, 99 S. W. 1055, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 718, 119 Am. St. Rep. 762, 9 Ann. Cas. 874; contra, Campbell v. Everhart, 139 N. C. 503, 52 S. E. 201; see Wigm. Ev. 1671; and the testimony of an enumerator after refreshing his memory by examination of his book and then stating particulars from recollection has been admitted; Battles v.
Tallman, 96 Ala. 403, 11 South. 247; but a school census is Inadmissible to prove age for any other than school purposes; Edwards v. Logan, 114 By. 312, 70 S. W. 852, 75 S. W. 257.
There is no presumption of law that at any age a woman is past the age of child bearing, but courts have recognized a pre sumption of fact as to a married woman of 49% years who had never borne a child; L. R. 14 Eq. 245; widow of 55%; L. R. 11 Eq. 408; a spinster of 53; 35 L. J. Ch. 303; and the presumption was refused in the case of a woman of 54%, married three years, who had never had a child; 9 Ch. D. 388. But in List v. Rodney, 83 Pa. 483, it was held that (quoting 2 Bla. Corn. 125) "a pos sibility of issue is always supposed to exist in law . . even though the donees be each of them one hundred years old," and that the law would not consider the physical impossibility of a woman's bearing children after she was seventy-five years old.