MISS MYERS'S MISHAP.
MUCH LITIGATION OVER AN ILLEGITIMATE. DOUR GRANDDAD MAKES GOOD— PUTATIVE PA TO PAY UP . "Costs" arid Court m Conflict;* I (From "Truth's" Christchurch Rep.)
The appearance of an illegitimate kiddie m the household of John Sqott; Myers, at Marshland, a couple of yearsago was the commencement of one of the longest drawn out judicial stunts •Christchurch has ever been treated to. Mainly on account of the tenacity of John Scott Myers, the little unwanted'? granddad, it has come before the Court j quite a dozen times. In the first place, Myers succeeded before Mr. Day, S.M. m, fixing the paternity on Albert Crozier. But Albert DIDN'T RELISH THE HONOR and took an appeal to the Supreme Court, skippered by Lawyer Eric Harper. The appeal was allowed. Myers then laid informations for perjury against four of the witnesses and each, was dismissed. ; , i Undaunted, Myers opened the case afresh m the Magistrate's Court, before i Mr. T. A, B. Bailey, S.M., and the in-formation-was dismissed, with costs/ against ; Myers. The case was then | again brought before Mr. Bailey, S.M., Who had allowed Myers to plead under the Destitute Persons Act, and on the evidence of Myers's witness, held that ; there was not sufficient corroborative evidence to necessitate the defence be- : Ing called. Thus it was, that each time the case was brought subsequently, and always with Mr. Bailey' on the Bench, the same decisipn was given. Tbus Lawyer Harper's witnesses lapsed; into the habit of taking it for granted that they Would riot be required and stayed away ' V ' •• WHEN THE CASE BOBBED UP. : j" Sonle time ago, "Truth" published a brief history of the case, pointing out that finality could only be reached before ■ another magistrate. During, last month Myers applied for a ichange, of venue and the case was set down for hearing at Ashburton, on August 28, before Magistrate Day. Myers having been authoiised under the Destitute Persons Act to have the evidence of his witnesses taken on commission m Christchurch, later decided to have it heard m Christchurch. ' • - Last Thursday, Magistrate Day, having sanctioned the proceedings m Ashburton the previous week, landed m Christchurch to finish the hearing, which was as lively as it was expected to be. Lawyer Flesher appeared for Myers, and as usual, Lawyer Harper represented the defendant, Albert Crozier. SPARKS SOON BEGAN TO FLY. Lawyer Harper, addressing the Bench said: Before tho start of the case or what I may rightly call another phase of this farce , . » His Worship: This farce! Why a farce? I will explain later. You have no right to use such &. term respecting proceedings authorised by the Statute. They cannot be a farce. I admit the Statute authorises them. What I want to know is whether this is the sitting of the Court adjourned from Ashburton?— Yes, it is. Lawyer Harper went on to outline the procedin.gs that had been authorised under the Destitute Person's Act, and stated that Myers had decided to have the evidence heard m Christchurch, although he didn't want the case to be taken before Mr. Bailey, S.M. The S.M.: You mentioned the same thing at Ashburton, Mr." Harper. You have no right to a copy of that letter. Lawyer Harper: It was part of my application on the file. That doesn't mater; the application is a formal matter. A letter is a letter. You must make no i*eference to it. If Myers refers tp it I reserve my right to cross-examine on It. You have no' right to do so. Lawyer Harper continued to refer to the order to take evidence, when HE WAS,. PULLED UP SHORT ' by the S.M., asking why ho was touch-, ing that matter again. Because 1/ want the public to hear about this case. » The S.M. said that he had told counsel at Ashburton, and once more he would tell him that Mr, Bishop, S.M., being senior magistrate, it was Mr. Day's duty to make a statement and order the evidence on commission to be given before Mr. Bishop. If counsel had any objection to raise he should proCfiod with It. In any case, the question of the evidence of Myers's two witnesses taken m Chrisichurch would not arise unless Mr. Flesher attempted to use it . Lawyer Harper: But their evlddnoe meantime Is before you, and, though 1 don't suggest you will be influenced by it. "you take the position of a jury before whom Improper evidence has been addressed. His Worship: lam not a Jur.v^and at present you are out of order. Lawyer Harjior again objected to tho case being adjourned from Ashburton to Christchurch, though his client was summoned to appear at Ashburton. . The S.M.: The question of that adjournment was considered by you In Mr. Bishop's room and you agreed to it. Oh, no! All right Mr. Bishop was present and I'm quite satisfied that he will support my statement. You don't question my power io adjourn tho case? No-. But I contend that the exorcising of that power hiia m this cuae worked an injustice — YES, A FLAGRANT INJUSTICE. It is the function of the Court to administer justice. Yes — Justice to both sides. j There has been no injustice done,
and, if you question my jurisdiction, you have the power to take proceedings. I have given notice that steps will be taken, . , ; Yes; arid it was an improper notice to give. I have had a letter from you, but I "didn't intend to refer to it I would be glad if you would refer to it and read it ■—> ' < Please be quiet. It's a most improper procedure for a professional man to write to a magistrate threatening proceedings. It's the first time I have re-* ceived such a letter and I hope it will be the last • - You have misconstrued it. I have got the letter, but I don't intend to gratify your vanity by reading iti Again Lawyer Harper protested/ against the S. M.'s jurisdiction and was met with the reply that his Worship's A-iews were entitled to as much respect as if he were sitting m the Supreme Court. Mr. Harper asked thai his objection should be noted, to whioh the S.Mv: replied: i "I will make no such note. 1 have ample jurisdiction. If Mr. Flesher refers to the evidence of Myers's "witnesses taken m Chrlstchur/jh, your references to it will be m order." ' ' Lawyer Harper:. He may not use it. ' The S.M. : Well, what then?— Your Worship will be influenced by that. The S.M. : Oh, give me credit for a little sense, Mr.» Harper- ! Harper said that, so far, he had" npt had an 'explanation of the adjournment. . The S.M.: I'm not here to give an explanation. I have jurisdiction. The seventeen year old mother of the child, whose appearance caused the whole bother, staged that the youngster was born on September 22, 1912, and . Albert Crozler was its papa, he having qualified for the honor on the night of the last day m 1911, m Morten's paddock. Two months previously he, and she had. first 'sinned together. On the momentous December, evening, a. "braw bricht munelicht nicbt," by. the way, the girl, who was then only a little over fourteerii had been rowing oh the River Stynx with Albert Crozier, his sister. Millie, brother Tom, Tom Cox and a chap named Charles Encjefleld. The party left Crozier's at 6 or 6.30 p.m., walked to the Stynx Bridge and after about half an hour on the water, returned All except Tom Crazier and Cox, who stayed to tie up the boat, toddled, over to the sliprfuis of- Morten's paddock, Ericlefield and Millie Crozler hit off towards home after Cox rind Tom Crozlei), who had tied; up the boat and passed" them by the sliprails. The Myers's flapper and Bert Crozler were left on their /lonesome. Crozier then took the girl by the wing and steered her behind a gorze hedge where the obvious happened, the girl screaming and resisting meanwhfle. There were about twenty .people on the" bridge a couple of hundred yards away, but, the girl explained that, owing to her weak vocal apparatus together with the fact that a breeze was blowing m the opposite direction, it, was quite on the cards that those on the bridge could NOT HEAR HER DISTRESS SIGNALS. Afterwards the pair emerged from the paddock. They saw Millie Crozier and Enclefleltl seated at the side of the road, but the quartette did not walk home four abreast. On the occasion of the October intimacy, the girl also resisted Crozier. The allegation of force on Crozier's part had hot been made at the original hearing of the case, because the question necessary to draw the information had not 'been' put to witness. When her condition was discovered and she confessed to her father, she withheld that information because Crozier had threatened to Bhoot her if she ( told anyone and she was frightened. , An elder Myers girl corroborated her young sister's evidence regarding the boating trip. She did not go with the .party, but merely Baw them off and saw them return. She met Pat McCarthy at Quaig's gate where she yarned until George Crozler and someone else came along. She then walked on to Crozief's and waited for the boating party to return. Cox and Tom Crozier were the first pair to return and later came Millie and Enclefield, followed afterwards by witness's sister and Bert Crozier. The party returned m pairs. John Scott Myers, * the hero of the many misses. stattJd that he learned of his daughter's trouble m August, 1912, when she had been examined by Dr. Anderson. He at once instituted proceedings against Crozler, charging him with a criminal offonce, but as the STATUTORY SIX MONTHS HAD j ELAPSED the charge was withdrawn. He closely questioned his daughter before she would tell him anything. She said that if she confessed. Crozler would shoot her. Eventually she told tho whole story and witness asked her if she had ovor behaved improperly with anyone else and she replied m the negative. At thnt time she never told her father about Crozler having forcibly tampered with her, • Pat McCarthy and Tom Martin deposed to having passed some of the boating party on tho bridge. Justin A. McCarthy, court orderly, stated that he was present m the Magistrate's Court on tho previous occasion when the case was heard. Ho remembered that the defendant stated he hud sent for Enclcfleld to ask him to give evidence that they camo homo together. . Witness also recollected
.Ernest Crozier having stated m" Court that the defendant, two or three weeks before his arrest, told him that he thought Myers's girl was m a certain condition. Mr. Flesher asked leave to put m the evidence of Tony Rogal and Tim Cox, taken on commission, but Mr. Harper objected on the ground that the order was m excess of the S.M.s jurisdiction. The evidence was admitted however and Mr. Harper's objection pencilled. ; Briefly, Rogal's testimony was that Crozier admitted intimacy with the girl. Rogal had been given cash "and onion seetTto the value of about £8 if 'he would give evidence against /the girl. He had not given evidence/ for the. Crozier's, however, but cauldn'f say whether he had been called by fhem. At no time had witness behaved improperly with the girl. i Tom Cox's evidence was to theleffect that the boating; party landed sunset. He saw the rest of thf party return to Crozier's -gate abdut.sß.3o or 8.46, not four abreast, but m pajrs with a good distance separating each couple. The breeze on the- night of pie outing was a nor' -westerly. Witless and Tom Crozier passed the othlr members of the party at the slip^ails. , During the proceedings, Mf. Harper, m questioning a witness, r/ferred to Mr. Bailey, S.M.s notes, j Lawyer Flesher objected, saying, 'ft is very strange that Mr. Harper slould have Mr. Bailey's notes, / I COULDN'T GET THEM!" The case for Myers clc/ed at this, and Lawyer Harper suljnitted that there had been no corrobrfation of the* girl's story. / ; The S.M. replied that tjere was ample corroboration to jusify Crozier's defence being tested. j Albert Crozier denied mvjng at any time behaved improperly with Myers's girl. After leaving the boat on the night of the river trip, . tl whole party, with the exception of ox and Tom Crozier, walked home for abreast, and' did not separate into coutles. Near the .slip-rails m Morten's addock, .they wer"e passed by Tom Cozier and Cox. He denied making the admission Royal charged him with havig made. Ten or' eleven months before the case bobbed: up originally, Rogl told witness that he (Royal) hadpeen overinti- ■ mate with the girl* an he had made similar statements siVbfequently. Quite recently, witness had hen Rogal and •the girl walking o\i together and Rogal seemed to hav< turned against witness and taken paj with the other side. Witness admitjd having given Ragal £2 and 31b. ojonion seed, but that was because Rgal had lost a good dear of time pfe way and another over the oaso.) , Under cross-exaqhatlon by Mr. Fleshor, witness sawthat a couple of ■ years ago, Rogal w<fced for the Croziers 1 for 25/- a weerbut was working elsewhere when wltess spoke to him about giving? evlde/e concerning his knowledge of Myeri girl. Mr. Flesheri Forhe same wages? — About the same, I oppose. How much is opn seed worth?— Ten shillings a poid. Then counting tn £2, you gave him a . 'f GOOD DEALf ORE VALUE than his lost timdvas worth?— A little more. -I Continuing, wiyss said the boating party landed abof9 p.m., and four of them went home jthout stopping anywhere. [ Mr. Flesher: /Vhero did Cox and your brother pa you?— At Morten's sliprails. ' J . ■ • " •'. ' That is. aboii one hundred yards from where ypupded. Cox and your brother, after hfllng you, had to row to the other 8i( of the river, tie the boat up and ifcra over the bridge. Yet you had oV gone 100 yards by the time they /ught up with you?-»-Yes. We were jdKing very slowly and they were neajf running. Witness cou,' not remember how It was that if hwalkod straight home he didn't see&cCarthy oil the road between the Jpralls and his home, and it woul<frot be correct if Cox swore that Vness was standing at Morten's sllMls when ho passed about sunsecWltness admitted having been out£' c 8 with the girl — once m October a/again on December 31— but he took for his own sake, that ho was notjono with her on either occasion, alfush a» one of the party he walked |°c alongside of her and went with / hoaxing party of which she was a piber. When he started out for th^'P he did not know sho would bo \ te - He admitted having Bpokon to P brother conoernlng her intoresting* ndl tion before ho was arrested; tlfwas the talk of Marshlands and a y° ne could notice it, but ho denied* 1 vln & conversed with a married man montioned, concerning the gs condition. Witness also admitted A'ingr approached Encleneld and aski| nlni t0 Klvo evidence. Ho did not, jveyer, qualify the ovldenco lie wanti nirn to Rive. When asked again, Tf 0 , 83 .once more dented HANG EVER BEHAVED f IMPROPERLY with M's"B &«rl. :. ■ , ■ ■ I^awjl Harper "put In for inj adjournnv- He sa.id he had not'exp t ec eQ iat it would be held there was c^ )orallon and that he would bo cal> on 1° defend. Consequently, several h ' s witnesses, including Mr. g a jj e p.M., were not available at a mom? 8 notice <j> n lM.: Mr. Bailey! You don't sugg( Ln at Mr. Bailey is going to gl ve donee. juJarpor: Mr.' Bailey will give cv l(jp if I want him to. Tlj.M.: He will not If he has any sens ms position. If you subpoenaed rae jro into the witness-box, I would re f V and you could not force me. paps bo, you have compiled with ma other requests, not on a subDttf' /Worship: Don't talk to me like jl. I say that Mr. Bailey IS going j n ' the witnoss-bnx. This matter nj i threshing: out. My client has had t yearaof his life wasted with this t f hanging over him. IJe has been j/noncd on bogus charges and Myers If been granted adjournments end*y. ,oro your witnesses subpoenaed for i case to day? — No. hen the case must, proceed. Had jpoenaes boon issued, I would have i no hesitation m adjourning. Jill!. Mr. Harper asked for an adirnment, but Mr, Floaher opposed ;h procedure, urging that Mr. Harmmmm r had no right to assume that the so was polnfj to be finished with the /idencfl of the complainant. Ho had rldently taken It for granted that he as going to have things ALT* HIS OWN WAY, * he had on previous occasions. The jcfe'ndant had really beow given tho ioasidera'.lon all. along, whilst consideration, if any, should have been frlven tho party who found it necessary to make uso of the Destitute PeraotiH Act. All along, the defence had been indulged beyond measure. The S.M. didn't sco why ho should adjourn and Mr. Harper, having no further witnesses to call, an order was made adjudging Crozier the putative father of the child. Ho waa further ordered to pay 7/6 per week towards tho maintenance of thft chllfl, pa«t maintenance, dating from October 20 J9J2. cost*, solicitor's fee (£2 2/-) and wltuessea 1 expenses. Security whs Mxtd «4t £100.