WHO WAS THE FATHER?

NZ Truth, Issue 109, 20 July 1907, Page 6

WHO WAS THE FATHER?

The Beak Cannot Say.

There are many speculative legal cases brought, on m this colony,- and /the pity -is that it should be so. Where a person goes for gain when lie or she has no case at all, it isn't .the cheese : m fact, it is blackmail. ■Evei;y case doesn't come under this heading, of course, but things' don't •look too good when a complainant doesn't turn up, as happened m an action at Christohuroh this week. She may have been ill; if so, this paper is Very, sorry for. her. It was a maintenance case, m which Hannah Catherine McTeague sued William Godfrey for the maintenance of the usual,. but highly necessary, youngster. Godfrey denied the Impeachment with much vigor. He is a cook at Warner's Hotel, and made things ,hot from the jump. Mr Leat-ham appeared for the girl, and said that owing to illness she couldn't be present. He proposed putting the defendant (for whom •Mr Cassidy appeared) into the box. In, doing so. he^ remarked, w th a smile on his chops, that he didn't think he had sufficient corroboration unless he examined Godfrey. Mr .Cassi'd" said hcwould like" 'to see the complainant as he had some (fuestions to ask her about other men. Mr Bishop, who presided, said that according to the law on the point, it wasn't necessary that the complainant should be present. However, Mr Leatham coukl conduct his case m his own way. The defendant said that HE HAD MET THE GIRL' McTeaguc at - Reidle's, the tobacconist's. He used to visit Reidle and Tjiay cards with him. He never knew her intimately, and had no intimacy with her at any time. Did you ever know site was m a certain condition ? — No. What, never ? — Not until I saw h«r with the child. Did you go to ReVdlo's to meet her ?— Certainly not. Haven't you been out walking with her ? — Never. I swear that absolutely. Has slif. not accused you of being the father of ' this child ?— Never. She kept comwany "with a young fellow named WiJson. Did you ever call tiev by her Christian name ?— I don't .know what her Christian name is. _„• In reply to Mr Cas&fdv, we mvness said that he , h*w! fed Invitations from tooth Messrs Donnelly amd Leatham to call upon them at heir offices, but be hadn't complied. That was the first time tha.t he knew, he was accused of being a father.- He had met the girl three weeks ago at Reidle's, and walked down the street with her. During their conversation she told him that she had been led astray' fey a certain woman that she mentioned* aft'd that a man at Sp.rey-

don, was tlie father. ' She^ had written to him and he replied to go to a certain doctor who would fix her up. The evidence so far was against the complainant, and the S.M. was dismissing the case without prejudice, when Mr Cassidy interposed, and said he was desirous ' of calling a witness whom he might not get again. The S.M. said that it wasn't necessary, but as counsel was insistent, Mrs Lillian Reidle'was called. The complainant, Miss McTeague, worked for her, she' said. She came from Halswell, and, noticing something, she asked her about her condition. She first denied anything about it, but subsequently admitted that she was, and s-aid that a certain VISITOR TO THE HOUSE who lived at Spreydon, was the fa- | tlier. It happened that he used to 1 see iier, ami she said on one • occasion that he was going to allow her five shillings a week. However, lie hadn't done so. Counsel : Did you tell her not to blame Godfrey ?— No. ,The case was dismissed.