Andrews v Askey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 1837 |
| Date | 17 February 1837 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 376
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
376 ANDREWS V. ASKEY 8 CAR. ft P. 8. Feb 17th, 1837. andrews v. askey. (In an action by a widow for the seduction of her daughter, per quod set oitium am-isif, the jury are not confined to the mere loat of seivice, but may give some damages for the distress and anxiety of mind which the mother has felt , and it is for them to say, taking into consideration the situation in life of the parties, what they think is a reasonable compensation to be given to her ; and in such a ca.se, if the daughter be called as a witness, she cannot be contradicted by evidence of statements to which she was not cross-examined ; but she may be called up again and asked the questions, though they should tend to charge her with having had connexion with another person } Action for the seduction of Amelia Andrews, the daughter of the plaintiff, pei quod sertntimm amtsit The plaintiff was a widow, carrying on the business of a fruiterer in theBorongh-rnarket, Southwark, and the defendant was in the same line of business, at a stall in the same market The principal witness was Amelia Andrews herself, who stated that the intercourse between the defendant and her commenced m August, 1835, and continued to the 1st of January, 1836, when it ceased-and that the child was born on the 20th of October, 1836. The only corroboration of the witness's testimony was, that the defendant and she were often found to be engaged in familiar conversation in the market, and that they amused themselves sometimes by throwing apples at each other. Amelia Andrews denied that she had ever had connexion with any other than the defendant (a), and that she had ever told a person named Lloyd that she had [8] Andrews, Serjeant, for the defendant.-By the salutary provisions of the New Poor Law Aet, Justices in sessions are prevented from making orders of filiation, without the corroboration of the mother's evidence in some material particulars And I submit that here the jury ought not to act upon her unsupported testimony, as she may be charging the child upon the wrong person There is also a peculiar circumstance in the case, viz. that there is a period of nine months and twenty days between the last act of intercourse and the birth of the child For the defence, some witnesses were called, who proved that a person named Mable was often seen in conversation with Amelia Andrews in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Edward Gibbon
...(P C bk. 1, c 69, s 8) Such evidence is admissible in actions for seduction. (See Verry v. Watkins, 1 Car & P. 308, and Andrews v. Askey, 8 Car. & P. 7.) Williams J" -Yes ; because it affects the damages. Barrow. Thirdly, perjury may be assigned, although the evidence be inadmissible. Proce......
-
Harrison v Bevington
...used, and cannot be allowed to state the impression produced apon their minds by the whole of the conversation.) 684 HARBISON V. BEVTNGTON 8 CAR & P. 7W. The declaration stated in substance, that the plaintiff carried on the business of a glue and size manufacturer, and that the defendant s......