ADJEI AND DUA v. RIPLEY

SMITH Ag.J. I have no doubt there is sufficient evidence to prove paternity in this case. There is the evidence of the defendant's cook for the period December 11, 1946, to April 15, 1947, that he introduced the second plaintiff (Rebecca Dua) to him in the early part of 1947. The defendant admits that Rebecca D,ua visited him on a few occasions. She gave birth to a child on November 29, 1947, at Kumasi (where the defendant had been stationed), a child of part African and part European descent. The defendant says in his evidence: "I did pg 64 not think the second plaintiff had conceived by me in view of the short' number of times she had visited me." That is no answer. There i~ no evidence that she was associating with any other European at the time. The defendant paid £35 for the second plaintiff; the documen1 covering the term of that payment is not procurable, but I canno1 suppose that it was intended as a final and full settlement of any or al claims. It seems to me that the defendant by such payment accepted responsibility.

It was some four months after this payment that the defendan1 left Kumasi, but he made business visits there although he was no1 again permanently resident there. He is a member of the firm 01 G. B. Ollivant and I should have thought easily traceable. It was not until November 23, 1953, that the solicitor for the second plaintiff wrote to the defendant demanding £500 for maintenance for the child. The delay in pursuing a claim of this nature is against the woman and the more particularly is this so when the delay covers a number! of years. None the less in this case the other circumstances are se strong that I cannot. possibly come to any other conclusion than that it is proved that the defendant is the father of the plaintiff's child. I really do not consider it necessary further to examine or narrate the rest of the evidence in detail on this point. There is the admitted relationship-the child of European/African descent; the coincidence of the period of pregnancy and birth; the weighing centre certificate; the negotiations with Mr. Asafu-Adjaye, and the payment of £35. I accept the evidence of Mr. Asafu-Adjaye and as the defendant said, it was left to Mr. Asafu-Adjaye to settle the trouble. The£a5 was for immediate expenses. Then there is the question of liability for maintenance of the child of which I find the second plaintiff is the mother and the defendant the father. Cases referred to are Marshall v.Dawson (1), Duncan v. Ro