48 / 336
1 0 u s c
through the main door. I did not close it
Properly. She came back into the hall and when I was
ryjng to get her out again, the defendant came into
i n
e hall and lie beat me around the face."
Sokl his house when wife left him
I he plaintiff went on to relate in distressed tones
at when he came home on the following Friday, his
th I
l h C Í r c h i , d r e n
and the furniture were gone from
house. His wife lived with the defendant and as
« result had a child by the defendant. He had sold his
°use. He was in physical fear of the defendant.
w
e h a d
nothing to live for. He was humiliated. He
home
3
^ ^
h a p p i l y m a r r i e d
man and they had a nice
The wife left the house next day and he
Id
not know where she went to for some lime until
J , discovered she had a flat on Wellington Road,
vnere he visited her and a later date spent four days
leaving when he could not stick any more of it.
He had not given her money because he was not
forking. He attributed the change in her attitude
owards him to the defendant's intervention. When he
ned to resume married life with her at the flat, she
•d not respond, telling him instead of the things the
e
endant had promised her, including a house and her
own car.
The wife began her evidence by saying that the
defendant had five children of his own. When
efendant's
wife died,
she
went across
to
^ f
a be
lpi
n
& hand with the housework and after a
while the defendant paid her for her work in the
°nse. Then closer relations between them developed
?
n
d
s
he found herself pregnant. She did not tell her
husband.
After the row over the Saturday night party, her
nusband left the house on the Sunday and she left it
®n the Monday, first living with the defendant's sister,
,
e r
S i t i ng the flat where, when her husband visited
she tried to make it up with him. She told him
hen of her pregnancy. Her husband first told her he
would take her back and would accept the child, but
^ o n left, and did not give her any money. "I had no
«o re money to pay for the flat so 1 went to the
defendant who took me in and I have stayed with him
Sl
nce.
I
am prepared to go back to my husband if he
W l
" t a ke me."
The wife confirmed that she and the defendant
had stayed together in a hotel during her Dublin visit.
To make amends
Answering his counsel, the defendant said he very
much regretted what he had done and would like to
the plaintiff's family re-united, having on one
ccasion taken her to where the plaintiff was living.
e
was prepared to make what amends he could.
He and the wife had relations both in Cork and
t
n
to
eir
trip to Dublin regardless of the consequences
o the wife's marriage. He and the wife were now
lv
mg as man and wife.
to
c b a r
Smg the jury, the Judge said they were not
consider the rights and wrongs as between the
P amtiff and his wife nor to consider whether the
e
ndant was a good or bad person. Their function
was to say how much was to be paid to the plaintiff
to make up for what he had lost and the injury he had
sustained. The plaintiff had been deprived for the rest
of his life of the love and affection that a wife could
give to her husband and for that he had to be com-
pensated, but they of the jury were not being asked to
do anything that would punish the defendant for his
wrong-doing. The defendant's regrets did not matter
either.
, After the jury had brought in their verdict, the
Judge granted a defence request for a 21-day stav of
execution. He awarded costs to the plaintiff.
(Keating v. O'Driscoll—High Court—Gannon J.—
unreported—17 January, 1975).
New trial awarded in criminal conversation action,
when £15,000 damages considered excessive, and
various
irregularities
in
Judge's
charge
condemned.
Plaintiff claims damages against the defendant for
criminal conversation. Upon the hearing before
Murnaghan J. and a jury in Cork in July, 1973, the
jury awarded the plaintiff £15,000. The husband,
plaintiff, and his wife were married in 1957, and first
lived at Bruree, Co. Limerick, where the plaintiff
carried on a grocery and business. Two children were
born, a daughter in May, 1958, and a son in November,
1960. The plaintiff began to drink to excess, and he
had to sell his business in Bruree, and to acquire a
similar business in Castletownroche, Co. Cork. Here
two more children were born, one in 1962 and the
other in 1965. Unfortunately the drink problem
persisted, and he had to occasionally undergo treat-
ment in hospital for alcoholism. Finally it was decided
that he would not continue in the business in Castle-
townroche but would start a new career in London.
Early in 1966 he went to London, where he obtained
work, and eventually set up an office cleaning business
of his own. The wife remained in Castletownroche
with the children, running the bar and grocery. The
defendant was a substantial farmer in the area who
patronised the plaintiff's bar. The wife and the
defendant gradually became friendly, and the friendli-
ness developed into an illicit intimacy, which persisted
from 1970 to 1972. In September, 1972, the defendant
inherited two farms from uncles who had died. The
wife wanted the defendant to fulfil an alleged promise
that he should leave his own wife, and go away with
her as soon as circumstances permitted. This the
defendant refused to do, and thus the full sordid story-
was made public. The plaintiff brought the proceedings
in September, 1972.
At this time, despite the intimacy between the wife
and the defendant, the wife continued to run the
bar and grocery on behalf of the husband. The wrong
done to the husband therefore consisted of the
invasion of the privacy of his marriage and of the
insult to his honour. There was no question of the
loss of his wife's services.
The action of "Criminal Conversation" is based on
Common Law in both England, until 1857, and Ireland
until today. The whole history of criminal conversation
44