MAGISTERIAL

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6053, 1 November 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

TIM ABU —Friday, November Ist,

(Before 0. A. Wray, Esq, E.M.)

DRUNKENNESS. Two first offenders were fined 5s each or 24 hours imprisonment. •AFFILIATION. South Canterbury Charitable Aid Board v. Donald Sutherland, application for order for payment of expenses incurred for defendant’s deceased illigitimate child. Mr A. Perry for complainant, Mr Harvey (Oamaru), for defendant. This application arose out of the following circumstances. In 1887 defendant was engaged to be married to a girl, both parties living at Temuka, and ho seduced her. She had not good health, suffering from lung disease, and sometime in February or March 1888 she went to the Timaru Hospital as an in-patient for treatment. While there, on April 9th, a child was born. Mother and child continued in the Hospital and on Aug. 20th the child died. The mother remained some time longer and was then removed to the Charitable Aid Barracks. Defendant never communicated with the mother while she was in the Hospital; but he swore in hia evidence that he went there to see her but she would not see him. He also stated that ho offered to marry her before the child was born but her mother would not allow her to marry him. On the death of the child the Hospital claimed from defendant £2 2s the cost of the mother’s confinement, and £1 per week for 19 weeks’ maintenanceof the child. Mr Jowsey, hospital steward, said £1 a week would not be a fair charge for the maintenance only of an infant, but as the mother was too ill to attend to it, £1 a week was not too much for maintenance and attendance. The Board, I through Constable Morton of Temuka, obtained from defendant a written acknowledgement that he was the father of the child and an undertaking to pay tho Board’s claim (though he objected to the amount as excessive at the rate of £1 per month, and he paid £1 cn account. Ho had since paid notbing.he left the district, and was only recently found, by accident, at Eakanui. Defendant wos examined, and stated that he had no property and was only earning £1 per week, out of which ho had to help to support bis mother and six children, his step-brothers and sisters whose father deserted them a few years ago. After he was found he offered all he had, to settle the matter, £6 Mr Harvey raised two legal points in defence, one was that the demand was not made within six months of the birth of the child, the other, more important, that a magistrate cannot make an order for maintenance of an illegitimate child, reprospcctive. He quoted the English Act of 1872, showing that if the order is applied for before the birth or within two months thereafter, the order may be given for maintenance from birth j if not till after two months from birth the order cannot be made for past expenses. A case was quoted in support of tbD, 8 L. R., Q. 8., 12. Mr Perry, in reply, said the English statute was a limiting statute; the New Zealand one was general. It would be absurd) to impose such a limit in New Zealand, where “ clearing out" was so easy, and no doubt the Legislature had that in their minds and purposely omitted the limitation. He quoted decisions under the older English Act, which did not contain the limitation,to show that Justices have power to date orders back to tho birth, Maule and Selwyn, 560 ; Salk eld 124 ; and I Seddefin, 326. There were no New Zealand cases.

His Worship said this was an important point, and ho must take time to consider it, unless the parties could come to some arrangement. Mr Perry said he had been offered £7 in settlement, but he could not accept that; the board would accept anything in reason. His Worship said defendant ought to try and make a satisfactory arrangement. Ho should remember that all the trouble had been caused by his conduct and he should make what amends he could; Independently of the law, he was morally liable for these expenses and as an honest man he should try to pay the charges ; not to try to get out of them on a legal point. Mr Perry said the girl was now being kept by the Charitable Aid Board. It was the worst case of the kind ho had ever heard of.

Mr Harvey thought it would be hard to convict a man and order him to pay such heavy charges if ho were not legally liable. His client’s conduct had not been very bad ; ho wanted to marry the girl. His Worship remanded the defendant for for a week, his bail being expended, and in reply to a query whether defendant must come up again said yes, and be did not pity him at all.