( 123 )
SINCHOHAMY r. GUXAYATHAMY'P. C. Tangalla, 15,597.
MaintenanceOrdinance No. 19 of 1889, s. 7—Evidence of paternity—Loose
character of the mother—Corroboration of the mother " in some materialparticular "—Mraniatj of the expression.
Jn Ordinance No. 19 of 1899, section 7, the requirement that themother's evidence as to the paternity of the defendant should . becorroborated “ in some material particular " means, when the motheris shown to be of a loose character, that she should lead corroborativeevidence that defendant and no other person was the father of thechild.
rpHE defendant was charged under section 3 of the Ordinance|No. 19 of 1889 with refusing to maintain his child. The
complainant’s statement that the defendant was the father ofher child was not corroborated by any of the witnesses called byher. The Magistrate believed her and ordered the defendant topay her a monthly allowance of- Es. 2, though there was someevidence that she was the mistress of several persons in succession.
Schneider, for appellant.
Cur. adv. vuit.
6th May, 1901. Browxk. A. —
I think this case amply illustrates the requirements of thelaw that the complainant in a claim for maintenance must haveher testimony corroborated in some material particular: I takethat expression to mean “ material to the issue that is beforethe Court." In this case, it would be ” material to the proof thatdefendant and no other person was the father of the child.”Here the evidence largely accuses the complainant as beinga woman of light or loose character, so that the proof shouldbe convincing that, of all her possible paramours, defendant wassolely responsible for the paternity of this child. There is- no-such evidence given-; and in some respects the Magistrate hasaccepted from at least one of the witnesses that which in hismouth was only hearsay evidence of what others ’had- told him,and so was entirely inadmissible.
I therefore set aside the order and dismiss the petitioner’sapplication with costs.
SINCHOHAMY v. GUNAVATHAMY