DARLING'S DOUBTS

NZ Truth, 15 March 1924, Page 8

DARLING'S DOUBTS

— » / Peculiar. Paternity Point Luxuriant Love Letters. (From "Truth's" Gisborne Rep.) From time immemorial it has been customary for love-sick swains to indite' lengthy epistles to their fair Inamoratas, and but for the unpleasant fact* that some of the little ladies are cautious enough to keep them tied up with a piece yot pink ribbon all would be well. Sydney Thomas Darling, a prosaic looking Scotchman, m the employ of the Agricultural Department at Gisborne, found to his cost that letter writing of that kind does hot pay. His gay effusions would do credit to any of the modern school of romantic journalists, and he should be well qualified to handle the society sob-stuff for any of our dashing dailies. Feeling, no doubt, that a little relaxation was necessary to one whose work brought him into touch with nothing more exciting than fox-glove and briars, Sydney Thomas chose to roam amidst the thorny paths of love. Thus it came about that, m due course, Darling's darling presented him with a chubby child, and requested that he should bear the expense of rearing the infant. This was not to the liking of Sydney Thomas, who suggested that others had been roaming m the forbidden fields. The case was heayd before Mr. E. C. Lewey, S.M., m the Magistrate's Court at Gisborne last week, the girl making an application for. an affiliation and maintenance order. Mr. L. T. Burnard handled the case for the lady, a demure little damsel of 22 summers, who looked just one of those' sweet young things about which the sinners rave and the godly preach. Sydney Thomas Darling was represented by Mr. A. Whitehead. . A feature of the case was that the defendant had,, during a period of six months, written a total of 58 letters to the girl, none of which were less than five foolscap pages m length, ahd all of which breathed a fervid spirit . of . undying affection entirely proper to these cases. The evidence showed that the girl m the case had been married m 1918 m England, and, two years later, had been deserted by her husband In Australia. Since coming to Gisborne she had passed as a single woman, and, - although not properly engaged, had worn a ring given her by the man alleged to be the father of her child. In his letters to the girl, Darling referred to her as his "wife," but it was stated that while ■ she was away with the baby he had been putting m a quiet little time with another female m Gisborne, quite oblivious to the charms of • the absent one. The girl gave evidence regarding her associations with the defendant, who had admitted the paternity of the child. He had promised to marry her and had gone to the length of securing a house. While m Auckland she had received 58 letters from him m all of which he admitted more or less the paternity of the child. He had paid the birth expenses and had sent her money all the time she was away. : In these letters he referred to the coming birth of the child, and expressed the hope that it would be a girl "JUST LIKE ITS MAMMY." Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead, the witness said that she had been married m England m 1918. She and her husband had gone to Australia, but th/re her husband deserted her and she came to New Zealand. WhUe In Gisborne she had gone under her maiden name, but many people knew that she was married. Mr. Whitehead: Your husband (meaning Darling) never knew you were married? — He knew right from the very first. « Mr. Burnard: His letters show that. Mr. Whitehead: Do you say that you did not give him to understand that you were single? — He knew all along I was married. Were you not an engaged couple? — He gave me a ring. Don't you think It's strange — a married woman engaged to someone else? — The ring was given to me as a token of something between us. A somewhat unusual course was then adopted by Mr. Burnard, who called the defendant as a witness for the plaintiff. The defendant stated that he had co-hablted with the plaintiff, but denied tho paternity of the child. Mr. Burnard: When did you find out that the child was not yours?— While she was at Mangapapa nursing a sick lady. When did you pick up with the young lady you are now going with? — I have known her a long time. You are engaged to her? — No, I am not. The letters produced by the plaintiff were written by you? — Yes. At that time you thought the baby was yours? — Yes. And you wanted it registered m your riame? — Yes. And then you later decided that the child was not yours? — I did not think It could be, born at that time. When did you expect it?— At least two months earlier. ' Mr. Burnard: I understand you have two objections — one regarding tho date of the birth of the child and the other regarding the fact that you did not know the girl was married. The defendant said that that was so. He had understood that she wap a single girl and he had become engaged to her. He had got a home ready \for her, and m January, 1923, she had told him she was a married woman. Mr. Burnard: But m May, 1923, you write: "I love you still as much as over. I feel like A BEWILDERED BLOWFLY I" '. Darling: I admit all the letters. Mr. Burnard: Then we may take lt that If the child had been born m July you would have been quite satisfied? Defendant: Yes. I considered that I had been tricked. The defendant then explained that during November and December, 1922, the girl was away at Mangapapa and that ho did not sco her. Mr. Burnard: But In May you wrote: "So Lil thinks about the 17th of September. I suppose It will be about that time, darling^ I will always love you as much as ever?" Defendant: Yes, that Is so. Mr. Burnard: Then all along you expected tho child to be born m September? — Yes, but I had forgotten she was away during November and December. Mr. Burnard: On July 2 you wrote i to her saying: "It is now about seven months." That brings the date right i for September. I Counsel for the plaintiff then read . extracts from a number of tho epistles ■ In which tho defendant referred to tho I fact that ho felt like a cuddle. The defendant said that all " THE LETTERS "WERE GENUINE . and that ho waa very attached ,to the t girl. He had sent money to her > until the demands had become *■ too great for his Income. To Mr. Whitehead: He had based 1 his Ideas of when thc baby would be ' born upon what thc girl had told him. He had made the first payment aboul ■ the end of April, whon he thought the child was his. His reasons for making the later payments were that h« could not afford to let the matter come Into Court, owing to the publicity thai would attach to the proceedings. Ht was earning £4 6s a week m thc Agricultural Department and was get- ' ting a pension of 10s a week. Alto-

gether he had paid the girl a total of £82. His first payment had been made voluntarily, but all the later payments were made under pressure. Re-examined by Mr. Burnard, Darling said that the money he had sent was for her keep m Auckland and it was sent under protest. When he found it impossible to send any more money the bad feeling started. Mr. Burnard: But from May until July you were satisfied that the child was to be born m September. The whole of those 58 letters were written during six months. You say the payments were made under the fear of publicity? — Yes, that is so. Mr. Burnard: But you still continued writing m the most affectionate terms? The Magistrate (to witness): But do you seriously suggest that you were FRIGHTENED OF BLACKMAIL? Defendant: Yes, and of being brought into divorce proceedings. Mr. Burnard: But during September you still continued writing m affectionate terms. That was after the child was born and you say: "I am glad it is all over. If it were to happen I think I would go dilly." Then, on October 2 you were discussing the question of her getting a divorce? Darling (heatedly): Those letters were supposed to be private. It's not a fair thing. I would never produce'one that had been sent to me. / Mr. Whitehead, for the defence, said that under the existing law the presumption m the case of a married woman was that the husband was the father. A married woman could not bastardise her own child. If the father was m Gisborne, no one would be able to recognise him. Complainant: Oh, yes they would. I'd recognise him. Continuing, Mr. Whitehead said that a light and airy statement by the plaintiff to the effect that her husband was m Australia was not sufficient evidence of desertion. Mn Lewey: Well, what evidence do you suggest should be brought with regard to that? Continuing, Mr. Whitehead said that 'the. girl' had been living a life of deceit, posing as a single woman. Complainant: I have not been living a life of deceit. Mr. Whitehead: Be quiet. The Magistrate: Young woman, you'll have to leave the Court if you can't be quiet. Mr. Whitehead said that the complainant had admitted under crossexamination that she did not know where her husband was. She must be able to give a definite statement regarding his whereabouts. He submitted that the proceedings should be dismissed. ' ,- For the complainant Mr. Burnard said that his friend had been talking about airy statements, but surely there could have been no more airy statement than his own assertion that the case should be dismissed. They had shown that the woman's husband had deserted her and had never been seen by her since. Mr. Burnard then quoted the case of divorce proceedings where evidence such as they had g^iven was accepted as proof. The complainant had sworn to her husband's desertion, and that must be taken as proof. The astonishing statement that the girl was living a lie had drawn forth a heated protest from the girl, but surely that was only natural under the .circumstances. It was a common practice for married women living apart from their husbands to ASSUME THEIR MAIDEN NAMES. Some of the world's leading actresses were married, but they always used their maiden names on the stage. The letters which had been written by the defendant showed that he had accepted paternity all through. Acting on the suggestion of the Magistrate, the complainant at this Btage went Into the box again. In answer to a series of questions from the Magistrate, she said that her husband had deserted her on August 20, 1920. She had first met the defendant m September, 1921. From the time she landed m New Zealand she had never seen her husband, nor had she heard from him. About eighteen months ago a friend of hers m Australia had written to her telling her that she had seen her husband at a picture show. In giving judgment, the Magistrate said that counsel for the defence had raised a rather novel point. He did not think that the fact that the girl had set herself up as a single" girl was seriously against her. He found it difficult to accept defendant's statement that he was not aware that the child was going to be born m September m view of all the letters, and he could not seriously credit the blackmail suggestion. He would find that the defendant was the putative father Of the child and would make 'an order for the payment of 10s a week, together with the costs of the action. Up to the time of the break the man had treated the girl very well, and the payments would only commence from November 1. A request by Mr. Whitehead for the suppression of the defendant's name met with a refusal front the Magistrate.