ALLEGED SEDUCTION

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 11592, 19 August 1931, Page 7

ALLEGED SEDUCTION

\ .DAMAGES OF £250 CLAIMED - UNUSUAL CIVIL ACTION The -first case of its kind id bo 1 heard in Gisborne for a Jong iime, 1 a civil claim for damages for f?c-' duct ion was opened in the Supreme 1 Court yesterday before His Honor ! Mr Justice Reed and. a jury of 12. ' The plaintiff w*is Charles Whiteley, 1 of Gisborne, waterside worker, and ho claijned damages to the amount of £250 from Sam Anderson, of Gisborne, spddler, for. the alleged ’ seduction of his daughter. The crossexamination of the Erst witness, ’ the plaintiff, had not concluded when the court adjourned until this morning. Mr J. Kinder appeared for plaintiff and Mr L. T. Buraard for defendant. The ifollowijng jury 'was lompannelled: George W. Marino (foreman), Thomas Kane, Ernest Topp, Edwin 11. Cartwright, Francis fir. Robbie, John R. Nicholson, James Morrison, Arthur Harding, John Douglas, Lionel C. Rhodes, Robert A. Morrison, and William G. Turin tl. Plaintiff, the first wituess <.yilled, said that lie had met defendant* for tlio first time on October 20. Witness spoke to defendant' and an angry argument ensued. Defendant said ho had been going with witness’s daughter lor two years and liked her, but couldn’t marry her. Witness asked defendant what he was going to do about it on! a l)ater occasion and another daughter of witness said: “Why don’t you marry her?” Defendant replied: “I never intended to marry her.’’ Witness then inquired: “What do you mean by going about with her for two years?” Defendant replied: “She forced herself; on to me.” Defendant was at legist ten years older than the girl ,who was only 18 a'b the time. Witness added that • lio Valid the rest of the family werf) very upset, and distressed about the matter, and that he himself was well-known about. town. His daughter had assisted in the homo and always gahq all h:er wages 'to her mother. Her.. health was not too good now. Tlio £250 claimed was not nearly enough for all the worry and anxiety caused ;and the slur on the family. - To Mjr Buruard, witness said that his daughter had obtained an order (against defendant for maintenance and adjudging him the father of the child. She had also been awarded 1 *CI4- for expenses. This money had been paid regularly. Witness admitted that, the maintenance for which defondant was li- 1 able would total. £63S. His daughter’s name bad not been published in the papers -at ‘the time of tho maintenance action. Witness gainer! the impression that defendant was a married man. Mr Buruard:. Did you say to defondant that you wouldn’t leave him a penny ?—No. I Hadn’t you. iu mind this type ,of . action? —It. never entered my h&acl 3 then. .It didn’t take long for you, to de- j eide on, a . way to leave ..him without a penny?—l would have given e everything I had tl.\at this shouldn’t " havo happened. You wore; quite, willing defendant ■' should have, married the girl?— , Yes.: • \ ■ So* you would haye lost .her sor.viqes in that ■: u;-ay ?—l’vo lost them 1 now. J _ 1 J At this stage, the hearing was r; adjourned until 10 a.m, to-day.