BENCH AND BAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8473, 26 January 1891, Page 6

BENCH AND BAR.

MR. H. SHORTLAND REBUKED. Dr. Giles gave judgment on Saturday morning in the affiliation caap of Annie Wynn v. William Baker. Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for the prosecution and Mr. H. Shortland for the defence. Dr. Giles said he had adjourned the case from last day, not because he had any doubt about his judgment, but because of the lateness of the hour and because he had been asked to make some remarks about what Mr. Shortland called attention to—the recrimination that had taken place in this case, and seeing that several facts had come out in this case of which he thought it was his duty to take some notice. Mr. Shortland complained that the counsel for the prosecution had committed a breach of professional etiquette inseeing the defendant after the summons had been issued. Dr. Giles said he did not know how far professional etiquette was carried out in Auckland, but he could quite see that such conduct might lend to abuse. It might lead to defendants being put into false positions. He had next to speak about the discreditable conduct of Mr. Shortland. He had never had to deal with a case before in which such disreputable circumstances were brought out. When Mr. Shortland said that he had been thrown over by the prosecution, and had taken up the opposite side, as any man in Auckland would have done, he seemed to have forgotten the facts that came out during the case. Mr. Shortland had volunteered to give evidence on behalf of Miss Wynn, sending a memo to Mr. [ Napier detailing the evidence that he would give. Mr. Shortland then enlisted on the side of the defence, and endeavoured to disprove the evidence that he had promised to give. When Mr. Shortland said that any professional man in Auckland would havedone the same, he was grossly slandering the members of the profession to which lie belonged. Dr. Giles then censured the conduct of girls who got into these scrapes and then seemed to treat the matter as if there was some element of jocularity in it, rather than remembering the disgrace into which they had brought themselves. Dr. Giles then adjudged defendant the reputed father of the child, and ordered him to pay the sum of 7s 6d per week towards its maintenance, further to pay the sum of three guineas, the cost of the accouchement, and also to pay the cost of the case. Mr. Shortland then applied to His Worship, asking him to state a case for appeal to the Supreme Court within the period of 14 days. Dr. Giles granted the appeal.