STONELEY THE SEDUCER.

NZ Truth, Issue 124, 2 November 1907, Page 5

STONELEY THE SEDUCER.

HE WEPT BIG SALT TEARS. Took Advantage of a Half-witted Girl. A MARRIED MAN IN A MESS.

A' man who would get a half-wit-ted girl into trouble and then deny paternity of her child can't well claim a very high position m anybody's estimation, but when the seducer is a married man and had been received into the girl's family as a highly respected and much esteemed friend his treacherjf is calculated to earn him something more than contempt. Such is the condition' of affairs between Edith McKay, a mentally "soft" damsel, who trusted unwisely. and a youthful-looking wharf laborer named George Stoneley, whose wife and one child did not prevent him taking advantage' of a weak creature, the protection of whom should have been the first call upon his loyalty to his friends. The j girl gave birth to a child on October 9, at Wellington, arid was obliged to sue Stoneley for its maintenance. The whole case seemed to hinge upon the evidence that Stonelev had had guilty intercourse with the girl m the month of January of the present year, and the endeavors of the defence were concentrated on obtaining proof that this did not occur. Mr Toogood appeared for the girl and Wr Jackson defended. ' Edith McKay, m evidence, stated that George Stoneley was a friend of hers, and she, recognised him as the father of her child, which was born on October 9. Stoneley had been on terms of improper intimacy with her m Keogh's yard. Newtown, over twelve months ago. The second occasion when something happened was m the . Basin Reserve after Stonelev had married another girl. The third occasion when illicit relations had taken place was prior to January 28 m a lane off the Brougham-street tennis court. SHE DIDN'T MENTION HER TROUBLE to anyone, not even to Stoneley, until three months before the birth, when she told her sister, Mrs Walsh. She then wrote to Stoneley, informing him. Dr. Elliott's charge for attendance was £3 3s, and the nurse's bill amounted to £2 2s. Stoneley was seeing her home when the fateful experience of January materialised. Mr Jackson endeavored to find.cftit from the girl if the child was a full-time one, but it was evident that she did not understand what was meant. William J. McKay, brother of the girl, said he had spoken to Stoneley on August 10 about his sister's condition. He remarked, m , reply, "Lord love me." McKay asked him if he was responsible, and Stoneley admitted ' the intimacy with the girl. They discussed the Question of what should) be done, as Stoneley, being a married man, was m something of a predicament. Subseouently Stoneley came up to McKay's house and further discussed the matter with McKay and a brother named Alexander. Stoneley said he suspected it would mean that he would have to break up his home. Stoneley saw them again, on August 11, and said he wanted to see" the child adopted, and the McKay brothers made prepar,a-. tions to fix the business up. On August 11 Willie McKay advised Stoneley to tell his wife, and he did so. Mrs Stoneley came down to the house of Mrs Walsh, a sister of the McKav's and a day or two afc ter Stoneley told him his wife had" left, him m consequence of what he had confessed. When the child was horn Wm. McKav informed Stoneley who asked its sex. that it was a girl. • Alexander McKay, brother of the last witness, said he met Stoneley m the Cricketers' Arms Hotel m August, and that individual mentioned the hole he had got into. Stoneley remarked, "What do you think of this ?" and 'Alec replied, "Not much." STONELEY WAS CRYING BITTERLY, and said that Willie McKay had informed him of the trouble that morning. The alleged father of the youngster said he would have to do something. Met Stoneley on th.c following; day at "Mrs Walshe's, where there was a family gathering. Archie, another brother, asked what was to be done, and Stoneley remarked. "We'll get it adopted." He also expressed dread concerning how his missus would take the calamity. •Archibald McKay, barman at the Cricketers' Arms Hotel, corroborated the above particulars, and said Stoneley appeared to dread the effect of the news on his wife. One night m January Stoneley came into the hotel and told Archie that his sister Edith was up at Stoneley's place, and Stoneley purposed seeing her home. Archie advised him not keep the girl out late. Mrs Emily Walsh said she suspected P/flip. was m a certain condition, and questioned the girl on the subject. The young woman admitted it. Mrs Walsh' was told by her husband that "Geordie" (Stoneley) was responsible for the girl's trouble. On August 11 Mrs Stoneley came up to Mrs Walshe's place. The visitor was m tears and the two had a very interesting conversation, but the rules of evidence did not permit of it being reoeated m the witness box. Evidently, however, "Geordie" had informed his missus about the McKay girl, and the missus didn't like it. Mrs James, nurse, save formal evidence and John McKay, another brother, mentioned a conversation with Stonelev m which the latter made remarks which were tantamount to an admission that he was fpfher of the cliiid. The defence was a complete denial, nlthouerh Stonplev admitted seducing the £hi some time previously. Stonplev stated m rviVprpp that he liypri m Ohnrlton Avomie, and had frnrtwn FVlith tluvv? voars. Ho had li^d intercourse with hrr on one occasion, only over two years nnd n-hnlf n.tro, when she was nt her brother's lionso m T-Te rlrv T v!M flint thf*. iriv' at "is Tiomsp ; n .Tnnufir^ f) If' (">'!"•'■> «:hp hnr] nnjrl : tlirm a visit m Pponmbor. F- h ? tvpH home by herself on that occasion.

The Brougham-street episode m Jam vary was an imaginary occurrence* He was first informed of Edie's trouble m August by William McKafl who said, "You have got Edie into trouble." Stoneley denied it. McKay again approached him and asked him what he was going to do about it. Stoneley replied, "You'd bettei see the father of the child and ask him what he is going to do about it." Stoneley said HIS WIFE HAD NOT LEFT HIM, and he hadn't informed any of the McKays that she had left himn Stoneley himself was sleeping away 1 , from home for a couple of nights, because his mother was with his wife, and there was no room foe him, as they were shifting To Mr Toogood witness said he didn't now the girl was a bit "soft." The first and only occasion on which he had seduced her was m Keogh's yard, and he denied all other occasions. He denied that he had said he. intended to get the child adopted. He denied being at any family meeting of the McKays m August, and he had never seen, the three brothers together at any time; also he hadn't spoken to Alex McKay m the Cricketers' Anns m August, when he was alleged to be sobbing. His wife had never called him a dirty brute -and threatened to shoot him.: Catherine", wife of Geordie, stated that -her husband had- told her he had been accused of fathering Edae McKay's child, but he swore to her that he had nothing to do with it. Edith McKay hadn't been m her house m January, and she was there one evening m December, and she also came to see Mrs Stoneley three days after her (Mrs Stoneley's) child was born on February 1-8. The witness indignantly denied that she had left her husband m consequence of what she had heard concerning his 1 intimacy with Edith McKay. Mrs Walsh had informed Mrs Stoneley that a Newtown man had taken Edith out at night. To Mr Toodgood : She hadn't attempted to shoot her husband m August, nor had she informed Mrs Walsh that Stoneley was a dirty brute and would have to keep both children. She hadn't changed her tune since that period. Miss Fenn, who described herself as a domestic , AND HAS A BABY >■. which keeps her m o' nights, , said she lived with the Stoneley 's. Edith McKay didn't call there m January, nor m February either. This witness didn't hear Mrs Stoneley's evidence to the e Sect that- Edith had called on February 22. Tom McNally, a youthful brother of Mrs Stoneley's, who also stays at home very much for a young, person, said he hadn't seen the girl at Stoneley's m January. •Magistrate Riddell commented upon the fact that under the Destitute Persons Act no order should be made unless the evidence of the. 'child's ' mother was corroborated on material points. However, a serious blot " on the defence was the inability of Stoneley to account for the evidence of the four brothers and the sister, which circumstantially described meetings with himself. It seemed ridiculous for a man to deny paternity yet to admit having had connection with the girl two andahalf years ago. His "Worship considered the weight of evidence to foe against Stoneley who was adjudicated the putative father of the child,, arid was ordered to pay 7s a week' towards its support, besides £3 3s doctor's fee, nurse £2 2s, solicitor £2 2s, and costs of Court 7s.