Morrissey v Boyle

Judgment Date01 January 1942
Date01 January 1942
CourtSupreme Court

Evidence of mother of illegitimate child - Necessity for further evidence "corroborative in some material particular" -Sufficiency of such evidence - No express statement by mother that defendant was father of the child - Whether the facts sufficient to justify such an inference - Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Act, 1930 (No. 17 of 1930), s. 3, sub-s. 2.

  1. Sect. 3, sub-s. 2, of the Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Act, 1930, provides: —"No Justice of the District Court shall be satisfied that a person is the putative father of an illegitimate child without hearing the evidence of the mother of such child and also evidence corroborative in some material particular or particulars of the evidence of such mother."Applicant brought a summons under the above Act against the defendant, B. She stated in evidence that on two occasions the defendant, who was introduced to her as Mr. M., took herwith another girl and a Civic Guard for a motor drive, that they stopped at a public house and that they then went off walking in pairs through the fields; that the defendant had intercourse with her on one of these occasions and on subsequent occasions and that as a result of this intercourse a child was born. Some weeks after the birth of the child she met the defendant and told him that she had been in trouble, and that "the baby is in a nursing home"; that he had asked her in what home and she told him; she also told him that she had had trouble with her parents and that her father wanted to see him, and that defendant then said he would arrange to meet her father but that it was too late that night; that her father then came up and defendant arranged to meet him on the following evening. Her father gave evidence that he met defendant on the same occasion and asked him was he Mr. B., and when defendant said "Yes," he brought defendant to the applicant and said "Now, Mr. M., this is my daughter and she will tell you her tale." The father then left them for 10 or 12 minutes and on his return the applicant said to her father, "Mr. B. wants to make an appointment to see you," and they arranged to meet on the following evening. The defendant did not keep the appointment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Walsh v Sligo County Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 December 2010
    ...[1975] I.R. 1. M'Queen v. Great Western Railway Co. [1875] L.R. 10 Q.B. 569. Mann v. Brodie (1885) 10 App. Cas. 378. Morrissey v. Boyle [1942] I.R. 514; (1942) 75 I.L.T.R. 228. Moser v. Ambleside Urban District Council (1924) 89 J.P. 59; (1925) L.G.R. 533. Moser v. Ambleside Urban District ......
  • Edward Walsh and Another v County Council for County of Sligo
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 11 November 2013
    ...AC 240; In re Ward of Court [1996] 2 IR 79; Bord na gCon v Murphy [1970] IR 301; The King v Lambe (1791) 2 Leach 552; Morrissey v Boyle [1942] IR 514; Woolway v Rowe (1834) 1 Ad & El 114; M'Kenna v Earl of Howth (1893) 27 ILTR 48; Evans v Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council [1899] 1 Ch 2......
  • Walsh & Cassidy v Sligo County Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 December 2010
    ...(1963) 49 M.P.R. 407.) 154 154. Admissions may also be made by conduct, both in the form of actions or omissions. In Morrissey v. Boyle [1942] I.R. 514, the Supreme Court considered circumstances where, following the birth of the applicant's child, a paternity issue arose. Sullivan C.J. not......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT