ABRUPT ENDING.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 151, 8 April 1930, Page 5

ABRUPT ENDING.

AFFILIATION CASE. EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, April 7. A sudden end was reached in an affiliation case in the Magistrate’s G'ourt to-day consequent upon the Magistrate ruling that neither a husband: nor a wife could give evidence in the direction of illegitimatisnig a child born during their cohabitation. Application was made by a young married woman for an affiliation order against a young married man, who appeared. The complainant went into the; witness-box to give evidence, but upon its being stated that she and her husband liyed under one roof counsel for defendant protested. He submitted that the law as it-now stood was that neither a. husband' nor a wife could give evidence to illegitimatise a child born during the time they were cohabiting. He quoted authorities in support. The Magistrate (to Mr Crombie, for the complainant) i Have you anything to say to this submission ? I think it is very formidable. Mr Crombie: I«vould like the opportunity to consider the case further. The Magistrate: I will dismiss the case without prejudice if you wish to consider it. Mr Scantlebury: That may mean that we may have to come back again later. The Magistrate: I have an idea it won’t. If I look into the matter, 1 think you will not have to come back again. Counsel for defendant said the defence was a complete and absolute denial of paternity. The Magistrate: That is the position. I rule that a wife cannot give evidence to illegitimatise her own child. Mr Scantlebury: Does your Worship also hold that the husband is not able to give evidence? The Magistrate: Yes. Neither the husband nor wife can give evidence that will tend to illegitimatise their own child.

The Magistrate said he would really like the opportunity of looking into the cases quoted by Mr Scantlebury, and lie adjourned the Court for that purpose. Upon the Court resuming counsel for complainant said it seemed clear that there was the presumption of legitimacy of a child horn in wedlock. That presumption could he repudiated by other evidence, but he was not prepared' to go on with the case on the evidence available. He therefore asked for a dismissal without prejudice of the complainant. “I may say that I had quite made up my mind,” said the Magistrate. “I thought so at the time.” He dismissed the case without prejudice, pointing out that complaintant was always at liberty to lay a complaint again. Costs amounting to £7 12s were allowed defendant.