[Newspaper]
Publication: The Globe
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
vol. 60, no. 16908, p. 11, col. 3
MRS. DOYLE NOT A WIDOW.
JUDGMENT IN ACTION AGAINST
DIAMOND GLASS CO.
Plaintiff Not Entitled to Maintain the
Action — County Court Appeals in
Divisional Court
Osgoode Hall, April 20.
High Court of Justice — Chambers.
Before Cartwright, Master.
·
·
Trial Court
Before Idington, J.
Doyle v. Diamond Flint Glass Co. — Judgment (C.) in action tried with a jury at Toronto. Action by plaintiff, as the widow of John Doyle, who whilst in the employment of defendants received such injuries as caused his death, to recover damages for his death, which she alleged was caused by defendants' negligence. The jury answered the questions submitted to them in favor of plaintiff, and the Judge reserved for his own consideration the questions whether the plaintiff is the widow of John Doyle, and whether she is debarred from recovering by a release or releases given to defendants. Held, on the evidence, that the deceased was, at the time he purported to marry the plaintiff, the husband of Ellen Doyle, who is still alive, and gave evidence at the trial, the legal presumption of the death of one Atkins, Ellen Doyle's first husband, before the second marriage, being absolute. Held, also that plaintiff not being the widow, and being without any personal interest in the subject matter of the suit, is not entitled in this action to claim as adminstratix by virtue of the grant of letters to her, as widow, long after the action was begun. Trice v. Robinson, 16 O.R. 433, distinguished. Griffiths v. Earl Dudley, 9 Q.B.D. 357; Bradshaw v. London and York R.W. Co. L.R. 16, C.P. 180, and Chard v. Rae, 18 O.R. 376, referred to. Held that the release given by plaintiff could not have been successfully set up as against the administratrix, even had plaintiff been the widow. It was not intended to do anything more than cover the chances of plaintiff’s personal rights. There was no fraud on defendants' part in procuring it, nor was plaintiff incompetent at the time of its execution. Held, as to the release given by the mother of deceased, that she did not understand the nature of the document which she signed, and that it furnishes no bar to the recovery by her of a proper sum. Action dismissed, but without costs, and without prejudice to either plaintiff or the mother bringing an action.