EVIDENCE BANNED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17229, 8 April 1930, Page 4

EVIDENCE BANNED

CHILD’S LEGITIMACY

PARENTS UNABLE TO TESTIFY

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last light

A sudden end was reached in an affiliation ease in the court to-day, consequent upon the magistrate ruling that neither a husband nor a wile could give evidence in the direction of illegitiinatising a child born during their co-habita-tion. An application was mad 3by a voting married woman for an affiliation order against a young married man. The complainant went into the witness box to give evidence, but upon its being stated that she and her husband lived under one roof, counsel for the defence protested, lie submitted that the Jaw as it now stands was that neither a husband nor a wife could give evidence to illcgitimatise a child born during the time they were eohabitating. lie quoted authorities in support. Tho magistrate, to Mr. Crombie : Have you anything to say to this sub-) mission? 1 think it is very formidable. Air. Crombie: 1 would like the opportunity to consider the ease further. The magistrate: 1 will dismiss tho case without prejudice, if you wish to consider it.

Mr. Scantlebury: That may mean we may have to come back again Jr.ter. The magistrate: I have an idea it won’t, if J look into the matter 1 think you will not linvo to come back again. Counsel for defendant said the defence was a complete and absolute denial of paternity. Tile magistrate : This is the position. 1 rule that a wife cannot give evidence to illegitimatise her own child. Mr. Scantlebury: Does Your Worship also hold that the husband is not able to give evidence?

The magistrate: Yes, neither the husband nor wife can give evidence that will tend to illegitimatise their own child. Ho mentioned that he would really like tho opportunity ’of looking into the cases quoted by Mr. Ucantlebury, and lie adjourned the co irb for that, purpose. Upon the court resuming, counsel for complainant said it seemed ciec.r that there was the presumption of legitimacy of a child born in wedlock. That presumption could he repudiated by other evidence, hut ho was not prepared to go on with tho case on the evidenco available. He therefore asked for a dismissal without prejudice of tho complainant.

“I may say that I had quite made up my mind,’’ said the magistrate. “I thought so at the time.” 110 dismissed the case without prejudice, pointing out that complainant was always at liberty to lay a complaint again. Costs amounting to £7 12s were allowed defendant.