PATERNITY QUESTION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 113, 9 April 1930, Page 7

PATERNITY QUESTION.

CASE AT WELLINGTON. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 7. A sudden end was roached in an afiiiliation case in the Magistrate’s Court to-day consequent upon the Magistrate ruling that neither a husband nor a wife could give evidenoe in the direction of illegitimatising a child born during their cohabitation, Application was made by a young married woman for an affiliation order •against a young married man, who appeared. Mr Crombie represented complainant and Mr A. E. L. Scantlobury appeared for defendant. The complainant went into the wit-ness-box to give evidence, but upon its being stated that she and hor husband lived under, one roof, counsel for defendant protested. He submitted that the law as it now stood was that neither a husband nor a wife could give evidence to illegitiroatiso a child born during the time they were cohabiting. He quoted authorities in support. The Magistrate (to Mr Crombie): Have you anything to say to this submission? . I think it is very formidable. Mr Crombie: I would like the opportunity to consider the case further. The Magistrate: I avill dismiss the case without prejudice if you wish to consider ’ it. Mr Scantlebury: That may mean we may have to come back again later. The Magistrate: I have-an idea it wont. If I look into the matter I think you will not have to come back again. Counsel for defendant said that the defence Was a complete and absoluto denial of paternity. - ; The Magistrate: This ia the position : I rule that a wife cannot give evidence to illegitimatise her own child. Mr Scantlebury: Does your Worship also hold that the husband is not able to give evidence P The Magistrate: Yes, neither the husband nor the wife can give evidenco that will tend to. ille'gitimatise their own child- He mentioned that he would really like the opporunity of looking into the cases quoted by Mr Scantlebury. and he adjourned the Court for that purposo. Upon the Court resuming, counsel for complainant said it seemed clear that there was the presumption of legitimacy of a child born in wedlock. That resumption could bo repudiated by other evidence, but he was not prepared to go on with- the case on the evidence available. He therefore asked for a dismissal without preju-. dice to the complainant. • - , “I may say thnt I had quite made up my mind,” said the Magistrate. “I thought so at the time.” He dismissed the case without prejudice, pointing out that complainant was always at liberty to lay a complaint again. Costs amounting to £7 12s were allowed defendant.