DISPUTED PATERNITY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3808, 8 March 1927, Page 51

DISPUTED PATERNITY.

AN APPEAL CASE. ~ MAGISTRATE’S DECISION REVERSED. His Honor Mr Justice Reed held a sitting of the Supreme Court on February 28, when a rather unusual case came up for hearing, Vincent Holloway, commercial traveller, of Dunedin, appealing against the decision of Mr Cruickshank, S.M., at Invercargill, in adjudging him father of the illegitimate child of Margaret Noble Newton. The child was born on June 15, 1926. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the appellant Holloway and Mr Gordon Reed, of Invercargill, for the respondent. The grounds of the appeal were that there was no evidence to support the order made by the magistrate; that the decision of the magistrate was against the evidence, and the weight of evidence, that the deci-' sion of the magistrate was wrong in fact and in law, and that the evidence of the complainant Newton was uncorroborated in any material particular. His Honor agreed with M r White’s claim that the case was in the nature of a rehearing. Mr Reed, outlining the facts of the case, said that the respondent had been a dressmaker at Otautau in October, 1925. Some years previously she had been working at Alexandra in Central Otago, and had met the appellant there. On October 3, 1925. while the girl was standing outside the shop at which she was employed at Otautau, Holloway came along in a motor car, spoke to her,. and asked her to come down to Invercargill with him. She allaged that Holloway took her round some of the back streets of Invercargill that evening and there intimacy took place. At this stage witnesses were ordered out of court at M r White’s request. Mr Reed continued that Holloway took respondent out in his car the following evening and again intimacy took placed Those were the only two occasions on which these people had seen each other between the time they left Alexandre and these proceedings. In February of last year the girl sent Holloway a registered letter acquainting him with her condition. She said she had received no reply, but Hollo way declared he had sent a reply. Violet Noble Newton, respondent, dressmaker, of Invercargill, si id that she had given birth to a child on June 15, 1926. Vincent Holloway was the father. He was in Alexandra while she was living there but they did not keep company. When witness met him on October 3, 1925, at Otautau it was about three years since she had previously seen him. She described the circumstances of their meeting, and the motor ride that followed to Invercarcargill where she stated that intimacy took place before she was driven home about p v similar occurrence took place the o owing evening. In February of the following year she sent a registered letter to the appellant acquainting him of her condition and telling him he was responsible. She received no reply. She had been brought up by her grandmother, and known by the name of Noble. In cross-examination by Mr White respondent admitted that she had had’ intimacy with a man named M‘Leod about or 1914 at Alexandra. She saw him at Otautau in November, 1925. She also admitted intimacy with a man named M Donald in 1921 at Alexandra. She saw him last. New Year’s Eve at Invercargill, bhe denied having kept company with a man named O’Brien in 1925. She was out six or seven times with him. but there was no understanding between them. In February she thought it- only fair to tell Holloway of her condition. She swore she did not get a letter from Holloway sayin° r that her letter was blackmail and that he woulu put it in the hands of the police. Edith Newton, a sister of the respondent, stated that the appellant had come round to their house on a Sunday night, and that the respondent had gone away with him. ?‘‘’jk Cross-examined, Witness said it was getting dark at the time. She had -in a man in the car, and her sister had introduced him to her as “Mr Holloway ” Alice .Eulahe Wills resident in Dunedin, a married sister of the respondent, said that she had gone to Invercargill, and that the appellant had told her he had taken her sister home to Invercargill. Thomas Henry Wills gave details of a conversation he had had with Holloway at Invercargill in 1926.

. H j s . Honor said that there was nothing in this evidence. This closed the case for the respondent Mr White submitted that there was no case to answer. His Honor said he would not stop the case at this stage. He would hear the evidence on the other side. The Appellant, in evidence, stated that he had no intimacy with the respondent at Alexandra. He had met the respondent on a Saturday afternoon at Otautau, and had had a conversation with her. He had offered to take her into Invercargill to her parents’ place, and about 5 o’clock they left for Invercargill. They had then gone to Drummond and thence to Wallacetown. It was dark at the time, and tea was “off” at Wallacetown. It was then after 7 o’clock. They had had tea prepared for them, and they then left Wallacetown for Invercargill. There had been no intimacy between them. He had not gone to the respondent’s place on the Sunday night. He did not even know the name of the street in Invercargill at which he had let her off the car. He had not seen the respondent again till he had met her m the police court. He Jiad received a registered letter from respondent while he was on the street on his way home. He had replied that it was blackmail, and that he was going to inform the police. He had posted this letter at 6nce. He had told Mrs Wille that he had taken her sister to Invercargill on the Saturday. Cross-examined, Appellant said that he had not even kissed the respondent on their way back to Invercargill. He had been in Invercargill since he had met the

respondent, but he had not looked her up Appellant admitted that a man named Henderson, whom he had given a ride to at Tuatapere had told him that he (appellant) was being accused of being the father of the child. He had replied that he knew nothing about it. _ Henderson said that M‘Leod had told him about it. Appellant said he had not been accused of being the father of another child. He had been mixed up in the case and had paid something. This closed the ease for the appellant. His Honor said he would like to know where was the corroboration. Mr Reed said he admitted there was considerable difficulty in regard to corroboration. Counsel quoted the law on the question of corroboration? His Honor said he might have the fullest confidence in the evidence of the girl, and yet it might not meet the legal definition of corroboration. The only corroboration he could suggest was that the appellant had lied in connection with the trip on the Sunday. Mr Reed further quoted the law on corroboration, and referred to the time the two had spent in the car on the Saturday afternoon. His Honor said there had been nothing in the evidence to suggest that the appellant knew otherwise that that the girl was quite virtuous. Mr Reed said it appeared foolish for him to go on. His Honor said he had looked carefully through the evidence in the lower court and had heard the evidence that day, and he could not see a tittle of corroborative evidence. The appeal would have to be allowed, with costs.