"DEPLORABLE."

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 86, 12 April 1927, Page 8

"DEPLORABLE."

CHILD BROUGHT TO COURT. TO STATE ITS PARENTAGE. COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE. (Bγ Telegraph.—Own Correspondent;) WHAXGAREI. this day. A case, with some peculiar features, was heard in the Magistrate's Court before Mr. F. H. Levien, SAL, when an affiliation order was sought against a resident of Ruakaka, in respect of a girl aged nine years, alleged to be the illegitimate daughter of a married woman resident in the same locality. Defendant, it was alleged, was the woman's neighbour, £Cnd her husband at the time of the- alleged illicit relations was absent for ten months. The complainant freelv admitted the relationship and said the defendant had at odd times paid a certain amount of maintenance in respect of the child. The last such payments brought the case within the scope of the statute. He also admitted parentage to complainant's husband. An important Ruling. The magistrate ruled that neither parent could give evidence in the direction of a child born during the term illegitimatising of their marria.ee. Basing his authority on the case of Russell versus Russell, he said the complainant was not entitled to give any details of illicit relationships, and that being so, how was she to give relevant testimony. Later in the proceedings counsel said there was a strong facial resemblance between the child and defendant. The Magistrate: You are placing a big tax on me, you know. Counsel: You will have no difficulty in this case. The Magistrate: Unfortunately I cannot set up as an expert. I have not seen the husband. Higher courts have ruled that magistrates should be very careful in these matters. After hearing the evidence of a daughter, also of the child in question, and of the husband regarding the utterances and payments of defendant, the magistrate said it was a deplorable state of affairs that a child should be brought into court and made to state that it was illegitimate in order to get an order for 10/ per week for a few years. Neighbours and Scandal. Complainant was responsible for the long delay which had occurred, and another factor seemed to be that some ladies of Ruakaka were anxious for a bit of scandal. However, the material points in the case lacked the corroboration which was an essential factor. Even the evidence in regard to payments made was decidedly shaky. The case was dismissed with costs £3 9/G against complainant.