A FARMER'S APPEAL

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 123, 26 May 1928, Page 11

A FARMER'S APPEAL

♦ ■ COIIROBOEATION OF EVIDENCE The question as.to what amounts to corroboration in the eyes of the law was argued on Thursday at the Supreme Court, beforo Mr. Justice Smith, when Victor Anson, of Feilding, farmer, appealed against the. decision of Mr. Salmon, S.M., adjudging him the father of au illegitimate child, born at Wellington on 28th August, 1927. Messrs. H. F. O'Lcary and W. E. Leicester appeared for the appellant, and Mr. ' A. Dunn for tho respondent. Tho point of the appeal was that under the Destitute Persons Act, 1910, tho evidence of the mother of the child has to be corroborated in some material particular to the satisfaction of tho Magistrate. The corroboration relied upon by tho Magistrate in making the order was tho evidence of a brother-in-law of the respondent 'that tho parties had been friendly, and certain letters produced at tho time of the hearing from a firm of solicitors in Palmerston North, enclosing sums of money for the respondent, who alleged in her evidence that she had been sent to this firm by Anson, who had stated that he would pay money to the firm on her account. It was argued for the appellant that there was not sufficient corroboration ■'to entitle the Court to make an order, and that tho solicitors mentioned had stated in the letters that the money had not como from Anson but from anothor source. The appellant contended that tho Magistrate was unjustified in assuming that tho money had come from him, and in commenting upon- tho fact that the appellant did not choso to give evidence which was unnecessary unless a priniii facie case was established for tho respondent. Tho evidence that the parties were friendly was simply evidence showing opportunity of intercourse and this sort of evidence had been frequently rejected by tho Courts. Counsel for tho respondent argued that tho Magistrate was entitled to assume from the whole of the evidence that the money in reality had come from Anson, and that he was not bound by strictly legal evidence under the Act. It was further argued that there was evidence that the parties had been on familiar terms and that this would amount to sufficient corroboration'-for the purpose of the making of the order. His Honour reserved his decision.