A ROMANCE OF REAL LIFE.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2105, 2 October 1875, Page 3

A ROMANCE OF REAL LIFE.

A case which Dr Mackay characterised as one of the taost romantic and extraordinary he had never heard of came before, the Emerald-hill Bench' on Saturday, in I the shape of an action for the maintenance ' of an illegitimate child. The plaintiff, Miss Frances Tetley, for whom Mr Fisher appeared, came, according to the evidence, submitted on her behalf, to Melbourne, from Hamilton-on-Forth, Tasmania in the i ' year 3871. Shortly after her arrival, while staying with a Mrs Woodman on a visit, she made the acquaintance of a young man named Draper. An engagement to marry was the result, and Miss Tetley returned to Tasmania. In the latter end of 1872. being informed by her intended husband that he was in a position to fulfil his promise, she came back to Melbourne, but finding that circumstances wore not altogether favourable to their marriage at the time, the young couple agreed to wait. Miss Tetley, afyer staying with friends for a short time, went to the home of a widowed shopkeeper at Emerald hill, named James Antony Moltine, whose daughter she knew, in the capacity of housekeeper, at a small salary, Miss Moltine, who had formerly kept house for her father, assisting in the shop. Miss Tetley's further account of the proceedings is as follows :—During the second week of her stay at Moltine's the latter proposed jnarria^e to his pretty housekeeper, who refused, on the ground of her prior engagement. Miss Tetley wished to sleep in the same room with Moltine's daughter, but the father objected on the score of health, and plaintiff accordingly slept in a room at the other side of the passage, the door of which defendant would not allow to be locked, the general morality of his household being, according to his own account, in the happy condition which pervaded England in the days of good King Alfred. In the dead of one Wednesday night, as the ■lady deposed on Saturday, Moltine stole into her room, and despite resistance effected his purpose. Bo noise was heard, and it was given in evidence that plaintiff, when confronted by danger, usually became paralysed and speechless. The following morning Moltine told his victim that he had, perhaps, done more than was right, but only with the intention of inducing her to become his wife, and so she did not inform her former lover of the occurrence, but discouraged his attentions. Moultine then pressed his suit, beguiled her with a promise;of marriage, gave her an engagement ring, and spoke of getting a wedding-ring. One-night he took her to see " Othello " at the theatre, and whilst walking home told her that he, like Othello, was jealous, and would serve her as the Moor of Venice served \Desdemona if- she betrayed him. Perceiving her condition, he sent her to Dr. Barret, who gave her a rreseription, at which he looked, and said it would do her no good. He afterwards took her to see a Dr. Turner, in LoHsdale street, who "would set her to rights," but he failed to find the latter, and began a series of shocking cruelties, kicking and, otherwise ill treating, her. She entreated him to marry her, but he replied that as his wife had only been dead five months he could scarcely do so, and sent her away to Tasmania, promising to wed her in a short time. There she gave birth to a child, but Moltine was faithless. Mr Fisher stated that an affidavit in his possession, made by plaintiff's brother, averred that Moltine had admitted to him being the father of Miss Tetley's child, and had promised to make the only reparation in his power, but the Bench decided that as the defence had, not an opportunity of cross-examining the deponent, who was absent at sea, the document could not be received. Henry Justin, a witness called on behalf of the complainant, said that, while with his wife at defendant's house one evening, Moltine had declared tbat Miss Tetley was "a perfect angel," and tkat "the man who got her for a wife would be very* fortunate.'' Dr Mackay, for the defence, declared the story was untrue,_ and submitted that no direct corroboration of Miss Tetley's story had been given, as required in similar cases by the Marriage and Matrimonial Causes Act. . The point was held to be fatal, and the case was dismissed without costs. It came out during examination tbat a Supreme Court action, for breach of promise and seduction, was pending, damages being laid at £5.00. Complainant gave her evidence, which was unshaken in a single particular by the severe cross-examina-tion of Dr. Mackay, in a highly intelligent arid, feeling manner, which at times amounted to pathos. The court was crowded during the enquiry.