Flynn v Connell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 30 June 1919
• Date: 30 June 1919
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)

K. B. Div.

Flynn v. Connell.

FLYNN

and

CONNELL (1)

Tort - Seduction - Service with another under contract with parent -

Action by parent.

Motion to set aside judgment.

The plaintiff, by his statement of claim, averred that he suffered damage from the seduction and carnally knowing by the defendant of Mary Anne Flynn, daughter and servant of the plaintiff, on or about the last week of April, 1917, whereby the said Mary Anne Flynn became pregnant with a child, of which she was delivered on the 31st day of January, 1918. The plaintiff, Michael Flynn, in consequence lost the services of the said Mary Anne Flynn, and incurred expenses in and about the taking care of and nursing her.

The defence consisted of the usual traverses. Issue was joined on these pleadings, and the action was tried together with an action by Mary Anne Flynn against the same defendant for breach of promise of marriage before the Right Hon. the Lord Chief Justice and a common jury of the city of Dublin on the 19th May, 1919.

The following are the material portions of the learned Judges report:—

This action was brought by Michael Flynn for the seduction of his daughter, Mary Anne Flynn, and another action was brought by Mary Anne Flynn for breach of promise of marriage. By order of the Court, dated 9th May, 1919, it was ordered, both sides consenting, that the actions should be tried together as one action.

In Mary Anne Flynn's action the jury found that the defendant did not promise to marry the plaintiff, and judgment was entered for the defendant accordingly, and this has not been challenged.

Evidence.—First witness—Michael Flynn (plaintiff). Aged seventy-two years. Lives on the borders of Kerry and Cork. Labourer. Six children and self at home. Wife dead three years next August. Connell lives a few yards away. Has seventeen cows. His wife died four years ago. Some time after that defendant had an interview with me in 1915. He said: "Will you let your daughter come to me now?" I said I would. He made the bargain—1, February to Christmas, £9 10s.; 2, I to have the work of one horse on a day; 3, she was to stay on for January, and was to be paid for January before a new bargain was made; 4, he was bound to leave her down to me—once a while for doing jobs when my wife was sick—on Sunday and piece of Saturday. She worked out that year. I got the hire of the horse; came home every Saturday and Sunday. My wife was in hospital sick; daughter Maggie was then about eleven or twelve; Mary Anne was seventeen or eighteen; the boys were very young. On Saturday and Sunday she would bake bread; do repairs.

1916. February to Christmas at £10 or £11 a year; a horse as before, and same bargain about coming home. All this year she came home.

1917. Bargain February to Christmas, £14. I to have work of horse three days. She came home same way. May, 1917, he asked Maggie to go work in addition to Mary; 4s. a week for milking morning and evening, and leaving her to me rest of the day. Maggie went and came back in the night. She might stop there an odd night. I remember month of July of the year when Maggie went to defendant. Maggie and Mary Anne both came home one day. Maggie did not go back. Mary Anne went back. After that I went to see defendant. I accused him of beating Maggie. I said nothing about Mary Anne. Three weeks or a month after I went to him again; I went for money. Out in August. I gave him a month's notice that I would take away Mary Anne. When month up I went again. He threatened to kill me. I saw Mary Anne and spoke to her. He was between me and her. She would not come away. "She couldn't come; she was promised too much." Same month I went again, and did not get her. I went three or four times altogether. My daughter did not come home at all. I went to see the priest. Mary Anne stayed on at house and did not come home at all after I had given him the month's notice. I had proceedings at Petty Sessions with defendant. I summoned him for beating Maggie, and about the hire of two horses. The cases were dismissed. The child was born 31st January, 1918, in Kanturk Union. I heard something about it, and I went that day to defendant's house. I asked him where she was, and he said she was out. I asked him could I not see her, and he said she was not at home. Next day I found her in hospital in Kanturk. She came home in three weeks, and is at home since.

. . . . . . .

Cross-examined—. . . "Paddy M'Mahon was not there until June."

Re-examined—"I was there when M'Mahon come to Connell. He asked for work and got it. It was 8th June, 1917."

Second witness, Mary Anne Flynn—"Twenty-three years of age. . . . There was no bargain till 1st February. I went to him September, 1914. I remember bargain, February to Christmas. Cannot say about the wages . . . July, 1916, he called me up in the room. He put his hand round my neck and asked me would I be his wife and I said I would. He had 'communications' with me all the time, then."

To me—"I mean by 'communications' misconduct."

. . . . . . .

"About two months after he commenced, had communication with me, going on Sunday to my own home, in a field. Maggie came to house 1st May, 1917. April, 1917, Connell had connexion with me out in the fields, going home from Connell's place. . . . In August I knew I was carrying a baby. I did not go home after August. He told me not to go home any more. He told me to keep my wages, and not to give it to my father any more . . .

January, 1918, I was taken to the workhouse—26th January. Before I went he said he would give me £40 by not putting the child on himself. I said nothing. He said to put it down on the man that was there—Paddy M'Mahon."

. . . . . . .

I asked her to give me in her own words a description of what happened in April, 1917.

To me—"We left the house together. We were going down in the garden. It was in his own garden. He had connexion with me. I went spreading the potatoes. I went back to the house. On that day I did not go to my father's house at all. This was the only time in the month of April he had connexion with me."

I then read my note of her evidence, given on her direct examination:—

"April, 1917, Connell had connexion with me out in the fields, going home from Connell's place." Answer—She says it is a mistake to say, as note says, that it was going home from Connell's place.

Cross-examined by leave—"My mother died in the Cork Asylum."

Re-examined by plaintiff's counsel by leave:—

"In the month of April I was out working with defendant. I was going home. Connell's children were in the house, and were told to stop inside till he came back. He put his hands round my neck, and he pulled me down and I had connexion with him then. I went to my father's house, and Connell went to his house."

I then read my note of what she stated to me in answer to my question, and asked her was it true. She answered, "It is true what you have first read for me."

Third witness, Maggie Flynn—"Fifteen or sixteen years of age . . . Saw Connell bring presents to sister. She told me she would be married soon to him. Connell could hear that. Connell said nothing. May, 1917, Connell and I and my sister were out at the turf-bank. He said he would get married to her. My sister said 'All right.' After that I had a row with Connell—went home. M'Mahon came to the house 8th June, 1917, and stayed nearly a week. He was working in the fields with Connell."

Fourth witness, John Flynn (brother of last witness)—"Twenty-five or twenty-six years of age. . . . Father Brick asked Connell was he the father of the child. Connell said 'No.' He asked my sister was Connell the father of the child. She said 'Yes.'"

. . . . . . .

Plaintiff's case closes.

The plaintiff's daughter, a young girl, living with him, having been hired by the defendant from the plaintiff under three successive yearly contracts as domestic servant, was seduced by him in...