COULDN'T GIVE EVIDENCE

NZ Truth, Issue 1272, 17 April 1930, Page 3

COULDN'T GIVE EVIDENCE

Unique Application Made For Order Against Married Man

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Wellington Eepresentative.) An unique case was heard m the Wellington Magistrate's , Court; when Eileen Hounslow,; a young married woman, brought proceedings against Clifford Woolley, a young married man, for maternity expenses and, 1 maintenance, m respect of a chiid of -which he. was alleged to be tho father. , Mr. Scantlebury, m opening, contended that no person, either husband or wife, could give evidence that would illegitimatise their own child.

MRt M, J.. CROMBIE" said that about December, 1928,' Mrs. Hounslow was employed near Blenheim, and her husband was employed m. Nelson. Woolley was m the -Blenheim district about that time, he being- very friendly with the woman. • In or about November or December a certain event allegedly took plac£ between both parties. / Later, she approached Woolley, who suggested, i;t was alleged, a certain course of action. ... Later he made another suggestion, which she was not prepared to adopt. Woolley allegedly then made an offer to her. She was to go to Dunedin and he would follow, saying that' he would see her through her trouble. Later on, he also made an offer to her to go to Wellington, saying that he would follow. "She acted on the latter suggestion," said Mr. Crombie. Continuing, counsel alleged that she wrote to Woolley several times, but he replied telling her not to worry, as he would see her through. She then sent him a prepaid telegram, then the birth, certificate of the child, but he did not answer these communications. Mrs." Hounslow and her husband then went to Blenheim, but an agreement could not be reached." ,On February 3 a communication was sent to "Woolley advising him to pay maintenance and expenses, said counsel, but as 'no heed was taken the complaint was then made.

Mrs. Hounslow went into the witness box to give evidence, but when she stated that she and her, husband lived under one roof, counsel for Woolley protested that neither husband nor wife could give evidence to illegitimatise a child born during the time they were so living together. He quoted extracts from similar cases, m support Qf his statement. The magistrate (to Mr. Cromtiie) : Have you anything to say to this submission? I think it is very formidable. Mr. Crombie: I would like an opportunity to consider the case further. His Worship: I will dismiss the case without prejudice if you wish to consider it. Mr. Scantlebury: That may mean we have to come back again on a later date. ! His Worship: I have an idea it won't," if I look into the matter, ) think you will not have to come back again. Counsel for Woolley then said . that the defence was a complete and absolute denial of paternity. The magistrate: This is the position: I rule that a wife canhot give evidence that will illegitimatise her own child. Mr. Scantlebury: Does your Worship also rule that the husband is not able to give evidence. His Worship: , Yes; neither husband nor wife can give evidence that will illegitimatise their own child. , , He further stated that he would like time to look into the cases quoted by Mr. Scantlebury, and he adjourned the court for that purpose. On resuming, the magistrate said that he had quite made up his mind to dismiss the case, but the complainant was always at liberty to la^r a further complaint again. Costs amounting to £7/12/- were allowed. 4H<mmiimim<iiMiiiiinmiiiiiiimiiiiiiimnMiimtiniiiimiiiimiuiiiimiirmiiinii