UNDER WHICH KING ?

NZ Truth, Issue 509, 20 March 1915, Page 9

UNDER WHICH KING ?

DENNISTON, BAILEY OR DAY? MYfRS-CROZIER CASE AGAIN IN COURT ;- ! (From "Tnith'o". 1 Christi'hurch Il'ep.)

Perpetual motion- m connection with Law Court procedure has apparently been Solvod ajt Chrlstchurch irt the Myers . v. ' Crozier afhliaition. action, m . which John Scott Myers, a Marshlands ..farmer, has been strenuously fighting during the last three years, to nail Arthur Herbert Crozier with the patternlty or Miss Myers's illegitimate ' daughter. .The law was first operated on by the r6ungater's grandad, on August 20, 1012, when he charged Crozier with the seduction of thfc then fourteen ' year old Miss Myerß. That charge was dropped on account of the 'statutory, trix months having elapsed between the date of the alleged offence and Grazier's arrest. ■ Then the undaunted grandpa •ought to have Crozier "fitted" with paternal honors m connection with the unauthorised youngster, and for about three years tho various Courts have PLAYED DIABOLO WITH THE ; APPLICATION. Myers* has appeared before Mr. T. A. 8. Bailey, 8.M., no less than thirteen times, and on each occasion the S.M. ■ has -Blither dismissed or adjourned the case. Three times the contentious case has been itakon to Magistrate Sifty's Court, and an order has been made tlgainst Croaier m each lnartanoe, only to be annulled, when the latter' bas appealed to the Supreme Court, before Judge Denniston, , :<ln the early stages of his litigational ,'. tiusßle, Myers was handicapped by his lack of finances. "Costs" Cassidy, who' w.as mixed up m the case at that time, argued points before Mr. Justice Denmston and was really responsible for the framing of section 67 of the DestiUrte Persons' Act, 'which states "that: ,- The dismissal ptt&: complaint or - :■* Application under any Port of this i Act, or the refusal of a Magistrate to make an afflllatlpn order or .; maintenance order, or any other ' order under this Act, ahall In no 6im ba • bur to ,the making of a further complaint or application m the same matter and against I ithe same or any other defendant by the same or any other complainant or applicant. Under that seotlon, neither FINANCES NOR MAGISTERIAL DISMISSALS would seem to be a bar to Myers taking the case: thfough the Courts (till ' Dooms~day, and he naturally regards the' Act 'and section 67 as (the best which have ever been placed on the' Statute Book; whilst Crozier, no doubt, reckons they're the worst. "Costs" Cassidy, however, retired gracefully from the- proceedings soon after he pjet the ball rolling, and other ''Costs" are 4 left to fight out (he finish, if ever . there will be a finish. 1 One of the most peculiar features of the whole business, Is that m spite, of the fact, that Mayers has been proceeding against Crozier under the Destitute Persons' Act, the various Courts have managed ito ring In a slab' ' Jtfrom the Justices of the Peace Act, .under which Myers has on three separate occasional been imprisoned for fourteen . days In Ly ttelton . gaol for failing to pay. costs in^ connection with ,the affiliation proceedings! The last occasion on which Crozler's Juppeal to the Supremo Court was allowed, his Honor Mr. Justice Dennis)ton, after dlßCUuaing the various phases of the case, since it was 'launched, away back In 1912, said that ,m giving judgment against Myers on this occasion, he did not think any magistrate would, allow the present, proceedings to go any further. There was a defect In the legislation which made it possible for. the ,cane TO GO ON ENDLESSLY, fend a remedial provision was necessary. . ■But, on February 26, Uls. Myers, undaunted by Justlco Dcnniitton's remarks', once more opened his 'case before Magistrate Day, at Ashburton. "Crozfer, although represented by counsel, was not present, and ilhe S.M. delivered the following judgmen-t : "John Scott Myers v. Arthur Herbert Criaier." "The complainant charges tho dofen-

dant with being the father of the illegitimate' female child of Myers's daughter. "This case has already been the subject of .two appeals from the adjudication of the defendant as the father of the child, which appeals have been allowed m favor of the defendant (Crozier). On the former hearing* m; the Magistrate's Court, the defendant (Crozier) and his witnesses gave evidence and, I understand, also gave : evidence on the hearing' of the appeals. ' "The case now comes before me m a very different manner. The complainant and his witnesses have appeared and^ given their evidence. Their crossexamination on behalf of the defendant was not m any way directed to show: that at any time Jhey had made In- 1 consistent statements and it WAS IN NO WAY SHAKEN. The defendant was not present (although represented by counsel), and neither gave evidence himself nor called any witnesses. Therefore, the' complainant's case comes before me unshaken and uncontradioted. <■ "It was urged by counsel for Crozier' that the decision of the Supreme Court; on the last appeal was binding upon l mo, and that therefore I was bound by the findings of fapt as found by the; Appellate Court and should dismiss : the case. To this I cannot assent, as the findings on the appeal were baaed on the evidence led by both parties before the Appellate Court. ' "I have (to deal with the evidence and facts as placed before me, irrespective of what may have happened before. "The complainant's case on this hearing is complete and uncontradicted. The defendant has .ejected to stay away and neither to give evidence himself nor call other evidenoe. '1 imake the order asked, adjudging the defendant the* father of <the child, and order him to pay 7/6 per week maintenance, dating from October 17, 1912, together with witnesses expenses, £1 10/*, and to find security m the sum of £200. (Signed) V. O. DAY." "Truth" understands that it is the intention of Crozier to appeal again to the Supreme Court. In that event ft would perhaps be just as well to have the case heard BEFORE FRESH JUDICIAL, BLOOD. Not that We have any qualms concerning the conscientious decisions of Mr. Justice Denniston, but the Myers - Crosier case has been allowed to drop into a judicial rut, and unless some change is made, H will, like Tennyson's '.'Brook," go on and on for ever. ' Under the present arrangement, Magistrate Bailey is not likely to cut his own throat by altering the decisions he has already given; Magistrate Day, for the same reason will probably continue .to hand Myers the verdict on each occasion, and ,hl* Honor Mr. Justice Denniaton, will , just as consistently bang Magistrate Day's order to the boundary. Perhaps Mr. Justice Sim will oblige? ; .