EXTRAORDINARY AFFILIATION CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 3050, 27 November 1872, Page 4

EXTRAORDINARY AFFILIATION CASE.

At Nelson, on the 19.1 i inst., Jacobin© Reimers, wlmm the Colonist describes as “a quite genteel looking woman, ” sued one Robert Diedrich, known by the name of Carl Blecher, to compel the maintenance of three illegitimate children. 'I lie complainant’s evidence was given as follows :—I first met defendant iq June, 1867- hi Riga. 1 was living with a family named Johnson as their adopted child. 1 was a dressmaker. Defendant was foreman of a cjme it manufacr tory. He was very kind to me, and proposed to marry me. 1 consented. There was a ceremony of betrothed, and we became vevlohen, that is betrothed. I told my friends I was going to be married to him, and he said he was going to be married to me, and gave mo a ring. The time was fixed for the wedding, which was to be in September. In July, after we were betrothed, we became for the hrst time intimately connected. About a fortnight before the day fixed for the wedding he persuaded me to go to London. We went to Bishopsgate street. Close by there was a church. About ten weeks after we arrived there there was a ceremony gone through in the house. A man came in whom Blecher said was a minister. He was dressed in 3, ’ bliipk gqwn. Ho read something out of a book and joined our hands.'"Blecher said, after the ceremony, we were married. A stamped paper was given to Blecher. I could not read English then. I was satisfied that we were married. Some time after, w'e tame direct to Nelson, where, on the 14th Ajjril, 1868, the first child wa* born. That child is Hlecher’s. On the way out Blecher said the paper given to him of our marriage was 1 tolen. From the time we left Riga we lived together as man and wife. The second child was born in February, 1870. The third was born in September last. After the second child was born he said it was nut his, and that be could turn me out whenever he liked, as I had no proof of our marriage. I have always been faithful to Blecher. Before we were married he said he had 1400. The defendant’s real name is not Carl Blecher. It is Robert Deidrioh. Since last September he hj. s treated me very badiy. In. the presence of the Rev. Mr Heine, Blecher said he was not married to me, and I then left him with Mr Heine. I often asked him to marry me, and he promised to do so from dgy to day. I could not Jeave him became I knew nobody, and could not speak Eng--1 sh. Blecher became jealous of a German here, and said the second child was his. He also accused me of improper intimacy with someone else, I declare that I have always been faithful to Blecher.

The defence was that the story of the mock marriage was a mere fable, and that the lirsfc and last child were not Blecher’s. The plaintiff, it was stated, had been very loose in her morals, and on terms of intimacy with other men. Mrs Lah Carter was put in the box to prove the allegations made for the defence regarding the plaintiff’s conduct, but the evidence of this witness was of quite a contrary nature. She had lodged in the same house with the parties for a period of two years, and that her opinion of plaintiff was, so far as she knew, that was a thoroughly honest and faithful woman, and onp of whom she never knew anything but good, The Resident Magistrate (Mr Bread) in giving judgment, said that, in the course of a long experience on the Bench in New Zealand, he had never met with a more heartless and utterly shameful case, and the defence which the man had the insolence to offer only rendered his whole proceedings more disgraceful than they were before. The judgment was that the defendant should pay 7s (id a week for eacli child, and 6s Gd costa in each of the three oa»iea f