WRONGED RUBY.

NZ Truth, Issue 245, 5 March 1910, Page 7

WRONGED RUBY.

SUES A YOUNG MAN. Peculiar Maintenance Case. The Claim Dismissed. After blowing m and out of the Dunedin Police Court for some weelrs, the case m which it was sought to make William Ross pay maintenance for an illegitimate child, of which he was held Ito he the father, .was proceeded with last ■week. At first the case looted very orj dinary, but later on it developed a technical turn which made it interesting. Mr Callan appeared for the complainant, and Mr Hanlon, with him Mr Scnrr, for the defendant. The &irl, Rubina Hobbs, who is 19 years of age, gave evidence that she had known defendant since about six months before November 17, 1908, the date of the general election and the alleged offence which caused the proceedings. Defendant was working for Messrs Haslet and Jobnstone, chemists, and 'complainant was m domestic service. They usually met on Sunday evenings, but they had no particular place of meeting— they just picked each other up along Princesstreet, and they never walked anywhere but m Princes or' Ueorge-streets. They always waiked on the right side ol Frinces-sfcreefc going towards Kattraystrce*. On general election night they met uei-weett the Octagon and Rattrayatreet aboat 6.45 p.m-. Passing the &x---cltange Court buildings defendant said he wanted to go inside and see a .man named Gas Harris. On defendant's sugges&ioa, ahe went into the building,, but £Mis Harris appeared to belong to the same feuaQy as the Mrs Harris whom Sairey Gamp spoice of. At the top' of the stairs defendant remarked that the weatber was hot, and sat down on the top stair. Shortly afterwards . the ofience complained of cceuxced. Six ; weelss later, | wfton her condition bad become interesting, site saw defendant and accused him of paternity, when ;he said, "That's all right. "■ She,y neii" "saw him at his mother's house, : when complainant, her mother, and her', grandmother called on defendant to see what- could be done, liefcndatet tried toMceep -his mother away frora tfee conference,, but she was finally allowed to be present at complainant's wish, when defendant said. he would own up to anything. The child was born v on May 21. . ..-.; ;i : .;. • <",;.■• Under cross-examination by Mr Hanlon, complainant said at the top of - the stairs there were two offences. On the first . occasion she resisted but. didn't scra&m, but on the second occasion she didn't resist. Defendant asked her to "tell, nobody about the matter. The baby was sickly, and had been fed on humanised mitt. Dr.. Lyndon thea gave the result of an examination of the child, which, he said, was miserable aijd sickly; and suffered from stomach trouble.. Mrs Anne Ansell, secretary of the Society for tlie Protection of Women and Children, said she interviewed Ross after the birth of the child. Atcer conferring on the matter m the presence of Mrs Ross, defendant escorted witness to the tram, and on the way, said : "I wish the women had gone, to you instead of my mother. I could have helped the girl a little. As matters stand I am helpless, as I have sworn the child is not mine. The mother of complainant gave unimportant evidence. . Complainant's grandmother also gave evidence. Mr Hanlon then addressed the Bench for the purpose of endeavoring to get the case dismissed. He; drew attention to-, the fact that no evidence had been called to corroborate the girl's story. Magistrate Bartholomew said m such cases.it was not necessary to have corroboration if the bench believed the girl's, tale. He decided to hear the evidence for the defence. After hearing evidence for the defence, m which great stress was laid on an alleged discrepancy of dates. Magistrate Bartholomew said he'd take time to consider his verdict. In giving his reserved judgment the Magistrate said the onus was on the complainant to show that the child was the result of the alleged' intimacy. He didn't think the merely digital examination carried out by Dr. Lyndon was complete enough to enable him to deter-■'minO'the-date of conception, and his examination, bf the -mother seventeen days after the birth of the child was not sufficient to be regarded as material ovi- , dence m the case. The complainant was called upon tc prove that the child was the result of the alleged intimacy, and • if she failed to establish that she CQlllcl not succeed m the action. This had not been established* and, therefore, the caso would be dismissed without prejudge. As this decision was tantamount to n n:nsuit m the Magistrate's I 'curt, a-? 1 .:; • would be allowed the defendant.