A POLICEMAN SHED FOB MAINTENANCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2455, 3 April 1901, Page 9

A POLICEMAN SHED FOB MAINTENANCE.

THE INFORMATION DISMISSED. At the City Police Court last Thursday, before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., Constable Andrew Christie, of Mosgiel, was charged -with failing to maintain an illegitimate child, of whom he was alleged to be the father, and of whom Backael Drummond was the mother. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for Ihe complainant, «nd Mr D. D. Macdonald for defendant. Mr Hanlon said he did not propose to comment on the facts of the case at any length: it was sufficient simply for him to say that complainant charged defendant with being the father of her child, and he would call witnesses who would detail circumstances which should Jeave no doubt in his Worship's mind that improprieties took place between the parties. If ms Woiship was satisfied with the evidence that theae witnesses would give, then he xhought it was quit* clear that an order shou'd 1)3 made against defendant. Counsel would also show that for a time defendant contributed towards the support of the child, but lately had" discontinued the. payments. Complainant recsived money from him through the post, arid she would produce one o£ the envelopes in which she alleged this money hod been scut. Perhaps it would be admitted that the handwriting v/as defendant' a, aad of course it was just possible that it mijjht be explained away. If he drmed that it was his handwriting, counsel would be called, on to prove that it was by exnert evidence Mr Macdonald- We" shall probably admit it. Mr Hanlon: It v.'ill save sending for expert evidence "Mr Macdonold • You need not do that. Counsel (continuing) said that a £l-ncte was fe'ded up in the envelope, and there was no letter or any writing accompanying it. Rachel Drummond, the complainant, said that she was a single woman living with rer mother at Mosgiel. Her child was born on April 23, 1899, and Constable Christie was its father. She became acquainted with him about four years ago. She broke a window m her pother's house, and her mother sent for him. Witness met him up the Saddle Hill road, where he arrested her and put her in the lockxin. He kept her there from 8 to 10 o'clock, »nd then let her out and took her home. That -was the first time impropriety occurred. When te took her to the lockup she was not charged ■with anything. She supposed it was done to frio-hten her. In June, 1898, defendant took her" to the courthouse at Mosgiel pt night, and jigam in July. About three months after she told him what was the matter, and he replied- *' Oh, you will get all right." She saw him a few weeks after, and told him he would have to send her money — that was about four months before her child wps born. He said he would send money, but did not do so. Witne&s wrote and asked him why he had failed to send it, ancl he said he hadn't any. In June, 1899, he sent her three postal notes for £1 each in an •envelope. About a month after he sent two foanfc"' notes for £1 each, and &he received £7 altogether m this way. Between January and April she asked him for money, and after the child was born she told him he would have to pay her 5s a week, which he agreed to do. He fas supposed to pay once a month, and once or twice he sent money thiough the post. He lte.pt up the payments "to June, 1900, and since that she had not received anything. The envelope produced was one of those that contained the money, and she did net know whose the handwntir.g was if it was not defendant's. Sic had jievei seen his writing.

Cross-exarmned . When she broke the window she ran away from home with a girl named Lizzie Stephens. Defendant was cent to bring [ them home, and he found them on the Dunedin road about a m:le and a-half from Mosgiel. When he brought them back he locked them both up for two hours. They arrived at the lockup about 5.30 in the evening, but he kept them in the office until 8 o'clock before he shut them up. When he let them out at 10 he took them both dqwn to Mrs Stephens' s house, and told witness to wait at the gate until he came out again. It was a very dark night, and she could not tell where he took her after that. She knew they went through back I streets to Forfar street. She never complained to anybody of the occurrence afterwards. She did not know a man named Jack Murray, or a mari named Gay, or a man named Taylor, and was not in the habit of walking out witli Taylor in unfrequented places. She never told anyone that Taylor was the father of her child, and that he paid her a lump sum. She had some trouble with her brother, who abused and struck her, and she called at the police station to complain about him on one or two occasions. She never wrote to defendant about him, and never received a r.ote from, defendant about her brother. Witness was 25 years old. She had never written anonymous letters to defendant. Sometimes she signed her initials only, but he knew whom the letters were from. Witness thought she wrote to him after seeing Mr Hanlon She asked him to meet her at a certain place, and there was nobody waiting for her near by on these occasions. Witness knew a man named Robertson at Mosgiel ; and the two Maekies. They were in the habit of coming to the house with letters. She knew that two of them vreie brought up on a chaTge of rape, and that Christie arrested them. She never had any conversation with the Mackies before or since. Witness was crossexamined about a letter, presumably containing charges against Constable Christie to Inspector Pardy, and was requested to write certain specimen v. ords which occurred in the letter, and which were put in. Continuing, she affirmed that March 8, 1808, wa3 one of the evenings she went oiit with defendant, and she fixed the date by the fact that the Governor was in Mo3giel that day. James Gilhgan deposed to seeing complainant and defendant together the night the Governor was in Mosgiel, and one night — he thought it was in the following July— he saw them go into the courthouse. Cross-examined • He knew nothing about the case until summoned as a. witness by Joseph Smith. He had never spoken to anyone about it except Joseph Smith (complainant's brother-in-law). He denied making any threat that he would ha\ c Christie sacked. He knew there was some feeling between his mother and Christie, and that she had lodged a complaint against him. Christie had locked "up witness's brother on a charge of drunkenness. He wab s\ire that he saw Christie and complainant 'on the night the Governor was m Mosgiel. Ha pas=ed withm syds of complainant and defendant on that occasion. He saw them subsequently one night when there was a merry-go-round in Mosgiel. He could not fix the date, and would swear he never told anyone it was July 8. John Smith corroborated the evidence of the last witness. Elizabeth Drurnmond, mother of complainant, svioie to the eiiielop? produced as one of those that her dpnghtpr received containing money. This concluded complainant's case Mr Macdoi.ald, in opening for the defence, Paid h's would draw bis Woi ship's attention to tho stature vmder which the information lidd lw*-:j laid. " Xhe Destitute Persons Act, 1594, '

section 9, subsection 4, laid it down that no perboii shall be adjudged to be the father of an illegitimate child on the evidence of the mother unless corroborated in some material particular by other testimony to the satisfaction of the magistrate. His Worship knew that this provision had been in all the statutes for a considerable time,' and the object was perfectly obvious. Counsel hero quoted " Taylor on Evidenop" p. 809. In the case before the court hi& Worship would s.e one peculiar feature — Ihe length of time which had elapsed. In order to get over part of this long period, complainant said that Christie had supplied her with money. Christie would absolutely deny that he had anything to do with complainant at all, or that he ever paid her a sixpence. She said she did not ta-ke proceedings sooner because he was paying, but there was no evidence except her own statement that he was paying at all. She said he sent her money. Christie would deny that. Ko would explain that on a certain occasion he sent a note to her, and the envelope produced was the one that contained that note. The girl Stephens would give evidence that the day defendant brought her and complainant back from Fairfield she was home by 8 o'clock. His Worship would see that there was a gTeat deal in this, and if he found a discrepancy in this paiticular he must have great hesitation in behoving anything that complainant had said. His Woiship would understand that complainant would be told by her solicitor that corroboration m material particulars was required. Strange to say that at the beginning of the case they relied on the evidence of the letter, and if it had come before the court last Thursday Gilhgan and Smith would not have been called to give evidence at all. It was a peculiar feature of the case that the prosecution, did not fix sprciric days, for if they did this, defendant v.ou!d then have some chance of showing where he was on such a day. If his Worship was going to pay ciedence to such evidence no man would be safe. He would bring ct dence to show that Gilhgan and Smilh had statsd to certain people that one of die elates wi= July 8, and they both denied this m their evidsnee. Counsel would bring evidence to show where Christie was on March 8. He was at Wingatui, and could not have been m Mosgiol at the time it was stated he was. As to the question of motive, his Worship could understand that m a. place like Mosgiel a con-•-tnble m the exercise of his diities rnusi make a lot of creni'E?. Counsel submitted that the , letter he produced showed sufficient oiotive M v Hanlon objected to'refeience to this letter, contending that it had not been put m, and the contents of it could not be put in as evidence, j Mr Macdonald concluded by submitting that there was a want of corroboration m complainant's story, and the case must be dismissed. j Defendant gave evidence that he had been m the force for 18 or 19 years. He denied that he had ever had anything to do with complainant, or that he had ever given her money. When the complaint was made to him that she had broken the window he vent down to have a look at the damage. He found she had cleared out and taken Lizzie Stephens with her. He was asked by their respective mothers to go after them, and he overtook them at Fairfield, nearly four miles away. He reached the police station about 6 o'clock. It was untrue that he had put them in the lock-up. He put them in the office, and sent for their mothers. Mrs Drurnmond began blackguarding her daughter, j calling her names. A large crowd of people gathered round, and the girls were not taken homo th n n. Witness took them home afterwards — about half-past 7. It win fa'^e that he had committed any cunie on complainant thit night, or that he had taivpn her home by an unfrequented street. On March 8 the Gover-

nor's carriage was left at Wingatui. That night witness went down past O'Kane's and met Gavan Murdoch, who walked with him to Wingatui. That was a little aftef 7, and the distance was two and a-half miles. At Wingatui they met Jas. Stewart end a man named Elder. After staying there for an hour tho four walked ! back to Mosg2el, and were nowhere m the I vicinity of Argyle street. At Mosgiel he met I John Rankin, who said he had been looking for j witness. Complainant called at the police j station on two occasions about her brother. Witness was away from home both times. He : afterwards received a letter from her comj plaining about him, and enclosing the envelope now produced. It was stamped, but unad- ( dressed. Witness turned down a corner of the letter and wrote : " You had better consult your solicitor," and sent it back, enclosing it in the envelope. The letter he got from Mr Hanlon asking for payment of arrears was the first he knew of the matter. He replied asking what he meant by the letter, and stating that he hnd been threatened by Robertson and Co., of Mosgiel, that he would be shifted or sack(«fl over the case of attempted race in the Supreme Court rcently, concluding by adding " Please inform me, so that I may place the matter before my inspector." Witness had spoken to the inspector about the matter, and he was instructed to let the case go on. Counsel : When you received this letter from Mr Hanlon, did it occur to you to ask this girl what she meant ?— Yes. What did she say to that'— l said to her "What do you mean by telhng Mr Hanlon I am the father of your child," and she replied- " I will make it pretty hot for you," and passed on. Has Gilhgan made an> threat to you s—He5 — He said he would have the coat oft' my back because I plnfted him off thp street. And so, as a matter of fact, the comnl.nnt of his mother against you has been adjourned until this case is decided 9 — Yes. Cross-examined The letter he got from Mr Hanlon v/as the first intimation he had that Miss Drummond wanted money fiom him. He denied having been with complainant in the courthouse, and would flatly contra-diet the three witnesses, and say that they were peijuring themselves on that point at any rate. Mr Hanlon- Leavirg Gilhgan out of t"ie question, can you assign any motive for Smith to dehbeiately pei iuie himself'' — Witness- I had to put him off the street, and he said, '■ You arc too officicms for Mosgiel , I v.'ill have to get you shifted " Do jou believe that Smith and Gilh-ran have both concocted this stoiy and made it fit with Mi«s Diummond's story ? — Yea. So that besides perjury they have entered into a conspiracy to get you into txouble 9 — That is so Gilhgan has sworn to being m a certain place on March 8 m company with Miss Diummond, who also swears you weie theie?— lt is totally false. Because you were at Wingatui ' — Yes. Will that appear m your diary 9 — I do not know that it will. I suppose it viU be m the diary'— l don t know that it will. Or might it not'— l cannot say whethci I mentioned Mcgiel in the diaiy oi not. I was at Wingatui that night. Counsel Well, have a look and see 9 Witness turned up the office diary for thai, dale, and lead the fa l low ing entry '' Town patiol 8 30 to 10 30. ' The walk to Wingatui, lie said, was included j>i tewn patro'. You say town paliol includes Wingatui 9 — Yes. I have often tc go out to Wmgatm. You staited at 7 30, so the chaiy is lnconecf — 7 30 -iv as the tune 1 left Mosgiel. If you go as far as two miles away from your

stat.on v, ould you not have b«=en justified in entering it specifically in the diary 9—9 — It is all in the town. You tell me it is m the town of Mosgiel? I often have to patrol dovvn there where there are a number of jockeys. Witness again denied cve 1 - standing and talking to complainant in his life. Counsel What you say is that the who'e thing is a. fabrication from top to bottom, and there is no truth in it whatever? — That is so. And that the witnesses have backed it uo with rank and corrupt perjury" — That is so. * James Stewart and Gavin Murdoch corroborated defendant's evidence m regard to the visit t6 Wirgatui, and both swore that the 9.30 tram from town passed them shortly after 10 o'clock on their way back. Jame3 Elder also gave corroborative evidence, but swore that they were back m Mosgiel before the tiam arrived. This witness, who was just tall enough tc see over the witness box, caused some amusement. John Rankin deposed to meeting defendant thit night on his return to Mosgiel. Mnry Stephens and Elizabeth Stephens also jrave evidence. Margaret Rankin said that she lived next door to complainant, aid had had a row with her some time ago. She told witness that she had <*ot a lump sum fiom Tavlor for the child, and that she was well naid lor it. Witness had had a child also and complainant taunted her pbout jt. Witness replied that hers was paid for. Mr Hanloi • Atkl so you are going to put a spoke in her wheel 9 Witness emphatically repudiated the susgestion, and protested that was not the case. They wore bad friends, but she wanted to see justice done James He-ndrick clerosed that Oilhgan was talking to him about, the case, and he told witness thit he had soon comnlai'.ant and defendant go i ito the courthouse on July 8 Mi. Hanlon Thank you; that will <?o me mcclv. This coiclucled thp ca=;e for the defence. Mi Graham Well, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot bsheve the story told by the complainant There la rot corroboration strorg enough to bear out that story . it is contiadicted by moro than one witness. 7 must, therefore, dismiss the case.

FOR COUGHS— A LUNG TONIC. There are hundreds of persons delicate at^ regards the respiratory organs who, on the least change of temperature or exposure, are attacked with bronchial discomfort, wheezing on the chest or " stuffiness m the head/* HOARSENESS. SORE THROAT, and PAR^ TIAL LOSS OF VOICE, to such Tussicura is a veritable boon. It should be taken imme« diately the symptoms or cough first appear. Thousands of severe Colds and Chest troubles may thus be prevented. TUSSICURA (Wild' Cherry Pectoial Balm), c old by all Chemist 9 and Stcrekeepeis throughout the colony, price, 3s 6d

The srlendid greyhound with the Wirth Circus Company, whose extraordinary jumping powers caused such astonishment to the spectators, ha* mrt with an untimely death. When on the way from the Thames to PaeroaJ it jumped o\er the bide of the truck, and hac_ v iv leg s po badly smashed that it had to be, destroyed.