NIL DESPERANDUM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11029, 18 March 1914, Page 6

NIL DESPERANDUM.

GRANDFATHER'S PERTINACITY. AN AFFILIATION CASE. When the case of Myers v. Crozier W£is called? at tlie Magistrate's Court to-day 3 Mr E. T. Harper rose wearily for the respondent and remarked that at the previous hearing the Magistrate had; granted a stay .of three weeks on condition that Myers should pay, costs, £2 2s. He liad heard nothing from John Scott Myers or his daughter, or -from their solicitor, and of course he was not going to go on. .

Of the history of the case the Magistrate was only too painfully aware. In September, 1912, the respondent was sued for the i maintenance of an illegitimate child. The case was dismissed by Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M. At another hearing Mr V. G. Day, 0.M., made an order, but the case was token to the Supreme Court, where the Judge found that there was not enough corroborative evidence. But the grandfather, did not allow the case to rest. He brought- ;it again; and once again Mr Bailey dismissed it. Ho is now persevering with his endeavour to establish the paternity of the child, and the present ease is the outcome. Incidentally, Myers has prosecuted lour persons for alleged perjury, the respondent Crozier and his brother, one tnglefield and one M"'Carthy, who was one of his own witnesses. All these cases were dismissed.

When the case came ; before Mr Bailey this morning Myers had a fresh solicitor, Mr- J. A. Flesher., who said that he understood that the Magistrate had not made it a condition of adjournment that eoste should be paid. "I made it perfectly clear," said the Magistrate. Mr Flesher submitted that the Magistrate had no power to make such an order. There was nothing in the Act about it.

"Do you suggest," said the Magistrate, 1 ' that, tho Court has to allow case after case to be brought. This case has been dismissed three times, twice by me, and once by the Supreme Court." Mr Flesher said that the Court could not stop it. Mr Harper interposed that Myers had engaged a new solicit-or, and evidently had enough money to carry on the. case, although he would not obey an order for costs. In this he was clearly in contempt of Court. Mr' Flesher replied that he had never had sixpence out of any affiliation case. He had simply taken them to help. The Magistrate, in reply, said that Myers had the right to appeal against his decision. Mr Flesher said that he would have to do it in forma pavmeris. The Magistrate replied that the Supreme Court provided for such a case. Mr, Harper- said that the Court had an inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse.

"This is not, abuse," said Mr Flesher. !" It seems to me it is," said the Magistrate; "the case has been brought three times." Finally the Magistrate said that while he' would not admit that his order was at fault, he would agree to hear the case next week, to have it done with. The Judge had ruled, however, that the case could only be brought again if there was fresli evidence. Mr Bailey read out the names of a large number of witnesses; but Mr Flesher maintained that he had two others to call. Mr Flesher then applied for a warrant for the production of witnesses. "What! Your own witnesses?" said Mi' Harper. "They won't come," said Mr Flesher.

Mr Flesher called over the list of witnesses, including M'Carthy, whereupon Mr Harper remarked that Myers had already prosecuted M'Carthy for perjury, and was now pestering him to give evidence. An adjournment for a week was granted.