DISTRICT COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 965, 9 June 1883, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

ASHBURTON. — Yestbedat.

(Before His Honor Deputy Judge Harvey.) APPEAL CASH.

Taylor v. Stephens—On resuming, after the adjournment yesterday afternoon, Clara Ann Miller deposed that she was sister of the respondent, Ada Taylor. Remembered Sunday, 28th May, 1882, and knew that Stephens was in company with her sister on that day. Evidence was then given as to what occurred in the early part of that evening, corroborating that of the previous witness. When witness reached Tasker's, Stephens and repondent wont straight down the road. The latter returned home at about 9.30, when the back of her dress and hat was dirty. Stephens had been once at witness’s house. Did not see him after the 28th May, except when he came to meet her sister at witness's house. Respondent told Stephens what was the matter with her, and he denied the accusation brought against him. —Cross-examined : Barker was staying at witness’s house during March from Saturday to Monday for three or four weeks. Her sister was in service at that time, but she only met Barker at the house on one or two occasions, although she did not sleep there at the time h j stayed. Thought she slept there one night in the month of March, but was quite sure it was not more. Had never known Barker and her sister walking out at nights. Witness’s husband has romped with the respondent, but it was not true they were found under the taole. On the Sunday night referred to the loops of her sister’s dress were undone, and it was crump • led and dirty, but witness made no remark and had no idea that anything was wrong. At the last visit or Stephens at the house nothing was said, to her knowledge, of Compton’s funeral.—Re-examined: Knew, that Compton’s funeral was on the 11th of Juhe. —George Miller cave evidence identical with that of the previous witness: in regard to the return of respondent on the evening of May 28th. Saw Stephens previous to. the confinement of respondent, and requested him to come to witness’s house. Remembered the day of the flower show, which was after the birth of the child, > when he saw Stephens and told him the 1 child was born, and asked him what he j was going to do with it. Stephens denied that he was the father, and said he did' not intend to do anything with it. Re-, spondent was regular in her conduct,

during theiphne sfee stayed in witness’s hpuse.—Crosftexatpined ; Barker) slept - with night, in the latter’s house, but copM not say if it was in the ntonth of March. Respondent slept in •the house only one night when Barker was ItKvre. . Never asked Stephens to take Mias Taylor out. Remembered fulling off respondent’s boot for the purpbse of cutting a corn. lt.wßßjl.9t true-tfiat he waif with respondent under the table. T<Jld Stephens on the nightjofthe' floorer show that he did n <i intend to have' do with tno 4 '«Mfet— Henry Barker : stiid he lived in Ashburton in April 1882. Knew George Millet and had stopped at h<s house. He also; knew respondent, but there had been nothing improper between them.—This concluded the respondent’s case. -Mr Wilding aub- f mitted that there was no case to answer, ’ as there was no corroboratory evidence. —Mr Purnell replied, and his Hono|r wi4. that there was no evidence, corroborating, that of the mother in. any (material particular. The appeal was granted,; with costa. i ’ This concluded the business, and the Court adjourned. i