FIGHT OVER PATERNITY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20285, 20 April 1934, Page 1

FIGHT OVER PATERNITY.

Man Goes to Gaol 19 Times Rather Than Pay. LONDON, April 12. As a sequel to the Smith-Batchelor maintenance case, the Chatham magistrate, on the ground that Sophia Batchelor had perjured herself in the original proceedings, revoked the order for a maintenance payment of 10s a week made against John Smith. In this case, rather than obey a maintenance order secured by Sophia Batchelor, a single woman, her fiance. John Smith, twenty-one, carpenter, who denied paternity, terminated their engagement on learning of her condition, and went to gaol nineteen times, aggregating eight months. Batchelor subsequently was charged with perjury for having sworn during affiliation proceedings i at she had never walked out with Stanley Wakeley, who was living apart lrom his wife. When Batchelor was found guilty. Smith fainted in the public gallery of the court. Batchelor agreed not to attempt to enforce the paternity order, and the judge, commencing her repentance, sentenced her to six weeks’ gaol. In to-day’s proceedings, Mr Reuben for Smith, explained that ihe actual order adjudging Smith the father was irrevocable, except that Parliamentarily Smith has expressed his willingness to undergo a blood test to disprove paternity. Mr Bamber, for Batchelor, suggested that the child, also Smith and Batchelor, should undergo blood tests at Batchelor’s expense. The records showed that 15,000 of 20,000 tests had established an indisputable blood relationship. The remaining 5000 had established that, there was no blood relationship. If the test disproved Smith’s paternity, the couit would never again see Batchelor. Mr Reuben declined the suggestion as ridiculous. He sain that human blood was divided into four groups. It could be said that Smith was not the father if his blood bdonged to group " A ” and that of the child to group “ B,” but both might belong to group “ A,” which included millions of people. Batchelor, after thf hearing, stated her intention of re-opening the case, because she was determined to fight for her boy. Smith declared that he would raise the matter in the House of Commons in order to remove th« personal stigma.