CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4041, 8 February 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Tuesday, Febuuaby 8. (Before V. Pyke, Esq., R.M., and G. M'Lean, Esq., J.P.)

Dbunkenness.—Sarah Macklestoff, who appeared with an infant in her anna, tfiaa discharged with a caution. : . Obscene Language.—Anne Nixon wtt&ied 20s, in default eeven days' Fighting.—James Crompion Alexander, for c mmitting a breach of the peace at Hillside, were each fined 10s and costs, in default three dat s' imprisonment. (Mr M'Lean here left the Bench.) Illegitimacy.—Wm. Roberts, cab proprietor, was charged by Mary Murdoch with lefusing to oontribute-towards -the support ot-ffo. illegitimate male child four months old, of which - he was alleged to be the father. Mr E. Cook appeared for complainant, Mr M'Keay defended.—Complainant eaid she was an un■ffltaYried' womanpeighteen -yeai*-of was the mother of - a male child, horn on" September 26, of which" defendant w.*s : the father. She fiißt became acquainted with him in ' September, 1874, and in i December went to live with him. Their intimacy continued" up' to the 'latter end «f February. He then left her for a; Mias Florence Brown. During this time defendant jjave her a gold ring and a pound. : Cross-examined: It was all a love affair. Defendant took the pound from her after giving it to her,.promising to buy her a bsttnr dress.- Defendant was the only man she had had' '* commercial transactions " with, and the only man she had cohabited with. When defendant "threw her over," he knew she "was- in the family way. John O'Brien, cab-driver, said he had seen complainant " knocking about" in defendant's paddock. -Mrs Mary Arm Murdoch, a middleaged woman, called. —Mr Cook': You are the daughter of the. comp'ainant in th 5 s case ? (Laughter.)— Witness: No»: I mother. (Renewed- laughter*) Learning :in January, 1875, that my daughter w,is. in defendants house I went thure. Defendant said he saw her ih« previous night; .but she not then there. Two months ago she wrote to defendant asking him to contribute towards the support of thechdd. No xe:Jy was .received to that letter. This wav complainant's caßß. Mr M'Keay contended that there: was jno proof of iefusal to provide for the maintenance of-the' chi'd. No ; demands! had been made on defendant. -^-His-Worship aereed that 'there was : no ' refusal to support J but there was sufficient evidence for mm to adjudge the plaintiff the putative father.—Mr MKeay then called John Muirhead, who .stated but denied ; any : intimate, acquaintance Th<- Bench would make a foj .the maintenance of the child, but no sum would he fixed. The case should hot have been brought •nto Court till fjorinal application: for maintenance hid been made, to defendant, and he had refused, If defendant now refused to contribute towards thk support lot-' the > bi>y further proceedings wculd nave to be taken and a special order for ite maintenance mader: