THE TOKOMAIRIRO SEDUCTION CASE.

Clutha Leader, Volume II, Issue 106, 21 July 1876, Page 6

THE TOKOMAIRIRO SEDUCTION CASE.

In the Supreme Court, Dunedin, on Monday, the case, Alexander Fraser v William Allison, was tried before his Honor Justice Williams and a special jury. It was an action for the recovery of damages for the alleged seduction of the plaintiff's daughter. The damages were laid at LISOO, and the issues su^ mitted to the jury were : — l. Did the defendant, in or about the month of November, 1874, debauch and carnally know Janet Fraser, she then being an unmarried daughter of tho plaintiff, and under the age of twenty-one years, whereby the said Janet Fraser became pregnant with . child ? 2. Did the plaintiff thereby lose the services of the said Janet Fraser, and was he put to great expense in and about finding medical comforts for her? 3. What"'damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant 1

Mr Macassey for the plaintiff, and Mr Haggitt for the defence. Counsel for the plaintiff opened the case at some length, and called

Alexander Fraser, who deposed that he was a farmer living at Tokomairiro, and was plaintiff in the present action. He had lived at Tokomairiro for eight years. He had a wife living, and a family of seven children, five of whom were married. Those unmarried were Thomas and Janet, who lived at Tokomairiro with him. Janet was born in January, 1854, His farm contained 18-1 acres. Janet was in the habit of assisting her mother to do the domestic work about the place. He knew Wm. Allison, the defendant, who lived, when in this country, at Tokomairiro, on the next farm. Allison had about 400 acres of land in the district. The defendant was a widower, his wife havino> died a few years ago. Some time after the death of his wife, witness spoke to him in reference to his daughter. He had some suspicion of defendant and his daughter, and went across the farm about seven one evening, and found the defendant concealed in the bottom of a ditch. Witness told him that he was ill-pleased about his coming after his daughter, and further, that witness hoped he would not destroy the peace of his family, as he did that of a neighboring family. The defendant replied that he would do as he pleased. Allison was about forty years of age. . The ditch was on witness's farm, and he told him to clear off. Witness's daughter was about three chains from where he found the defendant. Witness again spoke to defendant after the birth of the child, and asked him what was his intention regarding his daughter and the child. Tho defendant replied, "It is the first time I knew she had a child to me." Witness replied that was not true, as his wife had told defendant of it before. The defendant said that he should have some time to consider over the matter. Witness believed that Allison was now in Melbourne, Since the birth of the child Allison contributed nothing to the maintenance of the child.

To Mr Haggitt : It was last April two years that witness first objected to Allison paying his addresses to his daughter. He had been on friendly terms with Allison previously. He did not forbid the defendant coming to his house, but he told him to keep away when he learned that he was keeping company with witness's daughter. The defendant used to come to the house when witness was from home.

William Hewitson, farmer at Tokomairiro, said he had a conversation with the defendant about the end of August last year, after the birth of the child. The defendant said, " The child is not mine, it is Jimmy's." Witness told him that Jimmy ought to have married the girl, and defendant replied, " She never asked Jimmy, as it was me tlie old people wanted." To Mr Haggitt : Witness was a single man, but was never guilty of carrying on a flirtation with Miss Fraser or any other girl. He did not know how far a flirtation went. He was pretty often at Fraser's house, and knew a John Fraser whom he might have seen in the house. He also knew a man named James Anderson, but he did not recollect meeting him there either.

James Allison, a farmer at Tokomairiro, was a brother of defendant, who left the Colony about ' six weeks ago. Before leaving he transferred the whole of his property to witness and his brother. He learned from Hewitson that the defendant had accused witness of being the father of the child. Witness did not tell Hewitson that the accusation was a lie. He did not see how his brother could tell

whether witness was or not the father of the child.

To M r Haggitt : Witness was on intimate terms with Miss Fraser.

Mr Haggitt asked the witness if he ever had any improper intimacy with Miss Fraser 1

The witness declined to answer the question.

After argument, his Honor decided that as the proceedings to which the witness might be subject from answering the question would not be a punishment as for a crime, but merely of a pecuniary or civil nature, the witness was not protected.

The witness, on being told by his Honor that if he did not answer the question promptly he would render himself liable to punishment for contempt of Court, then answered in the negative.

To Mr Macassey : I was not scheming for the purpose of leaving it in doubt whether it was I or my brother who was the father of the child. Hewitson will be swearing what is false if he says that I said it was a lie when I was told that my brother had said that I was the father of the child. I paid my brother £200 in cash, and the remainder in bills, and I got the conveyance.

Janet Fraser said she was the daughter of the plaintiff, and was twenty-one last January. Her child was born on the 21st of August last year. William Allison was its father; no one but he ever had any improper intimacy with her. The first time anything wrong occurred between her and defendant was about a year after his wife's death. The defendant came after her about a month after the death of his wife. He proposed to witness, and she had agreed to accept him before anything improper took place. She had been in the habit of meeting the defendant at night. The defendant took advantage of her one night returning from a neighbor's place. She screamed out, but no one heard her. She was in the habit of meeting Allison afterwards at the gate, and in the house on Sunday afternoons, when the other members of her family were at churcn. Improper intercourse was afterwards renewed between them. Their marriage was to have taken place eighteen months after the death of defendant's wife, but when that time expired he said that he would not take her until she was twenty-one, as lier father did not wish her to have him. When sho first expected that she was to become a mother, she spoke to Allison on the subject. The defendant replied that if she were in the family- way the child was not his, and that she might give it to James Anderson. The last time she saw defendant was about three months before the birth of the child. On one occasion the defendant told her that he would take her in nine months after the child was born, if it lived, and in six months afterwards if the child died. The defendant also told her that ho would never many her if she said the child was his, and that if she would give the child to James Anderson ho would do anything he could for her. She replied that she could not do that. The defendant then said that he would never speak to her again if she said that the child was his. The defendant had never spoken to her from that day to this. The child was still living, and the defendant never contributed anything towards its support. At the conclusion of the case, counsel agreed to waive their right of addressing the jury, and also to dispense with the Judge's summing- up. At 5.30 the jury retired, and after an absence of only a few minutes, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of £300.