White v Dowdye

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Judge: Lewis, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 11 February 1972
• Neutral Citation: MS 1972 CA 2
• Docket Number: Magisterial Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1971
• Date: 11 February 1972

White

and

Dowdye

Lewis, C.J. Lewis, J.A. St. Bernard, J.A

Magisterial Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1971

Court of Appeal

Family Law - Children — Paternity

Held: The mother's evidence did amount to corroboration. Appeal dismissed.

Facts: The appellant was adjudged by the magistrate to be the putative father of the respondent's child and an order for maintenance was made against him. The issue was whether the mother's evidence amounted to corroboration as required by section 120 of the Magistrate's Code of Procedure Act Cap. 46.

Lewis, C.J.

1 The appellant was adjudged by the Magistrate to be the putative father of a male bastard child named Norville born of the body of the respondent Catherine Dowdye on the 16 ^th April 1971, and an order for maintenance was made against him. He has appealed against that adjudication.

2 The evidence for the respondent consisted of her own evidence and that of her mother. She said that she had intercourse with the appellant on the 12 ^th of August 1970 on a night when her mother was not at home. She expected her period later that month and didn't see it, nor did she see it the following month. She spoke to her mother. She also went to the appellant and told him that she was pregnant. He gave her some tablets, which she did not take. Eventually the child, according to her evidence was born on the 16 ^th of April the following year. The appellant never paid her anything. She said there was only one occasion of intercourse and that was on the 12 ^th of August. She denied suggestions put to her with respect to intercourse with other persons about that time.

3 Her mother, Eliza Lee, said that her daughter spoke to her towards the end of August and as a result she went and saw the appellant. The conversation was as follows: “I asked the defendant why he did that to my daughter. The defendant said it was misfortune and he could not help. I told him he should try and help her. The defendant said he would try his best”. The appellant did nothing and when she met him again in November he denied that he was responsible for her daughter's pregnancy. In cross-examination she said that it was in July that her daughter had missed her period and that she told her so on the 5 ^th of August. The latter part of that statement is in conflict with the evidence she had given in examination-in-chief. Her evidence that her daughter had told her in July that she had missed her period is in conflict with her daughter's evidence.

4 The appellant in his evidence admitted having had intercourse with the respondent on the 12 ^th of August 1970. He said she came to him the following month and told him she was two months pregnant for him. He said how...