INDEX TO APPENDIX CONTAINING PAGE VENEREAL DISEASE ACT, 1917 (7 & 8 Geo. 5, c. 21)... (Before Lord READING, C.J., RIDLEY and SCRUTTON, JJ.) MCGREGOR (app.) v. TELFORD (resp.). (a) Bastardy-Complaint of mother-Dismissal-Renewed complaint -Hearing by justices-Effect of new right of appeal to quarter sessions-Supplementary right-Res judicata-Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 58), s. 37, sub-s. 2. By sect. 37, sub-sect. 2, of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 58), it is provided: "An appeal shall lie to a court of quarter sessions in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts from any order made by a court of summary jurisdiction under the enactments relating to bastardy, or from any refusal by a court of summary jurisdiction to make such an order, or from the revocation, revival, or variation by a court of summary jurisdiction of such an order.” On the 15th day of April, 1915, a complaint was heard by justices on the part of the respondent that she had been delivered of a bastard child of which she alleged that the appellant was the father. The justices found in favour of the respondent, and ordered the appellant to pay a weekly sum for the maintenance of the child. Prior to the hearing on the 15th day of April it was objected, on the part of the appellant, that the justices had no right to hear the case, on the ground that it was res judicata, the respondent having previously made a similar complaint against the appellant in respect of the same child, which complaint had (a) Reported by J. A. SLATER, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. VOL. XXV. B MCGREGOR (app.) บ. TELFORD (resp.). 1913. Bastardy-Complaint of motherDismissal -Renewed complaint been dismissed because there was no corroborative evidence in support of her case. It was contended that although prior to the passing of the Act of 1914 the mother of a bastard child had always the right to Claim a rehearing in bastardy, provided such rehearing was within the prescribed period of twelve months, such right was given because there was no right of appeal in such cases, but that as there was now a right of appeal under the Act of 1914, the right of rehearing had been taken away. The justices overruled the objection of the appellant and made an order in favour of the respondent, as above stated. Hearing by Held, that the justices were right in hearing the complaint, as the justicesAct of 1914 had made no alteration in the old law. Effect of new right of appeal Reg. v. Machen (14 Q. B. 74) discussed and explained. to quarter sessions Supplemen. CASE stated by the justices of Gateshead. tary right Res judicata The following facts were either proved or admitted at the Justice Ad hearing before the justices: -Criminal ministration Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 58), s. 37, sub-s. 2. 1. On the 11th day of March, 1915, a summons was heard by the justices at Gateshead in which the respondent, Hilda Telford, a single woman, charged the appellant, James McGregor, with being the father of an illegitimate child to which she gave birth on the 11th day of November, 1914, and asked for an affiliation order against him. 2. On the hearing of the summons the justices were not satisfied that the evidence of the mother was sufficiently corroborated "in some material particular" as required by the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 65), s. 4, and accordingly dismissed the complaint. 3. Subsequently, on the 15th day of April, 1915, a second summons was heard before the justices, in which the respondent again charged the appellant with being the father of her illegitimate child and asked for an affiliation order against him. 4. Upon this second occasion the justices were satisfied with the corroborative evidence adduced and made an order against the appellant. Before the hearing of the second summons it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the justices had no jurisdiction, as the case was now res judicata; that by reason of the provisions of sect. 37, sub-sect. 2, of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, the right of a rehearing had been impliedly taken away, and that the only course open to a woman in bastardy proceedings was now the same as that in the case of a man— namely, an appeal to quarter sessions. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that as an appeal to quarter sessions was a more costly proceeding than a rehearing, the deprivation of the old right of rehearing would be a practical denial of justice. It was further contended that there was no ground for suggesting that the Act of 1914 had impliedly taken away the former right. Such right could only be taken MCGREGOR away by express provision. The justices overruled the objection of the appellant and heard the summons, with the result above stated. The question for the court was whether the justices were right in law. (app.) บ. TELFORD (resp.). 1915. Sect. 37, sub-sect. 2, of the Criminal Justice Administration BastardyAct, 1914, is set out in the headnote. The Act itself came into Complaint of motherforce on the 1st day of December, 1914. Dismissal Effect of new right of appeal to quarter sessions Supplementary rightRes judicata -Criminal Justice Ad Whiteley for the appellant.-In bastardy proceedings no right Renewed was given under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to the mother complaintto appeal to quarter sessions in case her application for an Hearing by justicesaffiliation order against the putative father failed, although the putative father might appeal if the decision of the justices was adverse to him. The parties were not therefore in a position of equality. But the woman had a right under an old rule which allowed her to take out any number of summonses against the putative father in respect of the same complaint, provided the proceedings were taken in time. This rule was an anomaly, and contravened the principle of res judicata. The reason for the old rule had been removed by sect. 37, sub-sect. 2, of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, which now gave the woman the right of appeal to quarter sessions in bastardy proceedings, and placed her in the same position as the putative father. The right of rehearing no longer existed. He cited Reg. v. Machen or Matchen (14 Q. B. 74), Reg. v. Gaunt (16 L. T. Rep. 379; L. Rep. 2 Q. B. 466), Reg. v. Glynne (26 L. T. Rep. 61 ; L. Rep. 7 Q. B. 16), Stokes v. Stokes (105 L. T. Rep. 416; (1911) P. 195). Gingell, for the respondent, was not called upon to argue. Lord READING, C.J.-The question which we are called upon to decide in the present case is whether the new provision contained in sect. 37, sub-sect. 2, of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, as to the right of appeal in affiliation proceedings on the part of the mother, has taken away from her the old right which she possessed of obtaining a rehearing of her case by the justices after it has been once dealt with by them. If the court had been satisfied that the jurisdiction of justices to rehear the claim of a woman for a period of twelve months, although the claim had already been dealt with, had been founded upon the fact that she did not possess the same right of appeal which a man had, it cannot be denied that there would have been much to be said for the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant. But when one comes to examine closely the case of Reg. v. Machen (ubi sup.), upon which the whole of the present discussion has practically been based, it will be seen that the case does not establish any such proposition. The judgment of Lord Denman, C.J. shows clearly what the true position is when a woman has taken proceedings in bastardy ministration Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 58), s. 37, sub-s. 2. |