MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 8659, 23 October 1896, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU Friday, October 23rd, (Before 0. A. Wray, Esq. S.M.) DOMESTIC TROUBLES. A caseinwhich a wife sued her husband for assault and desertion was postponed for a week, Mr Hay, for complainant, saying that the matters were in the way of being amicably settled. PUTTICK V. STAPLETON. The rehearing of the case Fmily Puitick v. P. Stapleton, a suit for main* tenunce of an illegitimate child, was taken, Mr Raymond for complainant, Mr Hay for defendant. Witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mr Raymond indicated the fresh evidence he would call, and it had been arranged, to save expense, that a witness brought down from Christchurch (defendant’s father-in-law) before should not be called,and that his formerevidence shtould be accented as given now, arid

ths same applied to one of the girls who had been previously examined. A witness who wanted to get away, an employ 6 in the Atlas mill, gave evidence that on a moonlight night, at a time which he could not fix, he saw two persons come out from a retired place near the mill, and he yelled at them. He did not know who they were, but presently defendant came to the mill and asked why they yelled at him, and there was some chaff about it. In reply to Mr Hay, witness said he thought defendant was at that time employed at.the mill, hut he was not sure ; and defendant had not been employed there for the last two years. The complainant’s examination began with the identification of the occurrence just testified to, and the time was since defendant’s return from Australia (August, 1895). The complainant then repeated her former evidence as to her relations with defendant. She added that the first she saw of him after h’B return from Australia was that he came to the place where she was in service in the country, and asked her to go to Dunedin with him, and she gave a week’s notice that day and left. Defendant, however, did not go to Dunedin. Complainant gave her evidence very clearly and positively. A female witness, a domestic servant, at the time a companion of complainant, testified afresh to having teen her and defendant together ontwo occasions. On one of these occasions she saw them going into the park at the cemetery gate about 8 o’clock one evening. William Goodman, a young man on whom, according to complainant, defendant had determined and plotted to cast the responsibility, denied that there had been any intimacy between him and complainant. He had made overtures to her but they were repulsed. Defendant boasted to him that he was familar with her. Edward Goodman and David McKenzie also testified that defendant, in October and November last year, boasted to them of his intimacy with complainant.

Before calling evidence for the defendant, Mr Hay commented at some length and adversely upon the new evidence adduced. The value of it lay in the alleged admissions of defendant, and it was peculiar and important to observe tb: ft the three men testified to separate statements, so that there was no chance of testing one by the other, and the conversations they related were not of a sort to strengthen one’s reliance upon their credibility in such a matter. The millhand’s evidence was obscure as to the time, because it was so long ago, and defendant would show that the incident occurred over two years ago.

The first witness for the defence was a young woman who claimed to have monopolised defendant’s attentions three evenings per week from early in October to the end of December, and she heard nothing of complainant except by a letter in which the latter objected to witness coming between her and defendant. The defendant was then put in the box and denied or explained away everything as he had done before. He had never been with complainant in any such places as she alleged; had never been intimate with her since his return from Australia. As to the incident at the mill, he was at that time, over two years ago, employed in a shed at the mill, and he returned at night to get his dinner kit, which he had forgotten, and complainant happened to accompany him. As to the fresh evidence, he positively denied making any such admissions as the three young men testified to, he had never discussed girls with them, never soiled his lips with some of the slang they swore he had used about this girl. Mr Raymond cross examined at length, but failed to shake defendant in his version.

In giving bis decision His Worship said it was as a rule objectionable to reopen a case once decided, but there were exceptions where evidence could be tendered to absolutely prove that the decision was wrong, and this was one of the exceptions. He did not think that, after hearing the evidence of the two Goodmans and McKenzie, any reason able person could doubt that defendant had been swearing falsely- It appeared to him that there had been a regular course of deceitful conduct on the part of the defendant, and that he introduced Goodman to complainant for the express purpose of screening himself. He did not know that it was necessary for him to comment any further on this aspect of the case ; it was for the police to say whether further steps should be taken in the matter or not. He adjudged defendant -to be the father of the child, and would make an order for the payment of the expenses incurred and for maintenance. Mr Raymond asked for the usual sum, 7s 6d per week, and also for sureties. His Worship agreed that it was a case for sureties. Mr Hay said that 5s a week was the utmost that defendant could pay, as he can only earn 30s a week and has a wife to keep; and it would be impossible for him to get sureties. If ordered to find sureties he would have to go to gaol, the 6s would not be forthcoming, and his wife would also come on the rates. A good deal of discussion took place on the terms of the order, and eventually His Worship agreed to make the order for sureties, and to suspend it so long as the weekly payments are regularly made. Defendant was ordered to pay 6s per week, and 10s extra, until the expenses are paid off 1 , the latter being doctor’s account £4 4s, Court costs £3 17s.