A SINGULAR CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 136, 9 June 1911, Page 6

A SINGULAR CASE.

DISPUTED PATERNITY. The case of Mrs. C. J. Seagar v. A. M. Conza, claiming for maintenance of a child, was again before Mr. C. C. Kettle, at the S.M. Court this morning. Mr. Schnaeur appeared for complainant. Mr. llackett, who appeared for the defence, stated that Mr. Conza had been to Wanganui, and brought back two witnesses. Mr. Kettle said he gave in writing last week details of certain inquiries he wished made by the police. Sergeant Treanor: I handed them on to my superior officer. Mr. Kettle: I must get that information, Sergeant. It is most extraordinary that a bench of justice cannot get the most simple information. I shall issue a subpoena to the chief clerk at the police station to produce the records to show in whose hands the warrant was placed for the arrest of Conza. I also want to know what steps have been taken to get other information asked for. Sergeant Treanor: I have reported to my superior officer, and I cannot tell you any more about the matter. Mr. Kettle said in the interests of justice he was determined to get to the bottom of this case. lie had adjourned it for a week to get certain information, and nothing was forthcoming. John Henry York deposed that Conza was in Wanganui in January, February, and March, 1909, but could not swear about the end of March or April. By Mr. Kettle: Conza's mother told bjim that Conza could not be the father of the child in question. He told her he thought he could pretty well swear to that time. Witness's brother was married to Conza's sister. John Frederick Conza, father of defendant, deposed to his son staying at his home in Wanganui from Christmas to April 2nd, 1909. By Mr. Schnauer: Witness believed his son slept at home every night in February, March, and up to April 2nd, 1909. He would not swear absolutely to every night, but believed be did. Mr. Hackett: Knowing that you will be prosecuted for perjury if you swear falsely, will you still swear your son was in Wanganui from Christmas to April 2nd. 1909? Witness: Yes. Mr. Kettle: Will you swear your son was not to your knowledge in Auckland, in March or April, 1909? Witness: To my knowledge, he was not. Mr. Kettle then examined both defendant and complainant at some length, each sticking closely to what' had been deposed previously. Mr. Hackett applied for a further adjournment dn order to enable defendant to produce a man in whose employ he was at Wanganui on a particular date. The case was accordingly adjourned for one week.