SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4178, 18 July 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Monday, July 1?. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and & Special Jury.) ALEXANDER FRASER V, WM, ALLISON. In this Oftse tko plaintiff, who was a farmer at Tokomairiro, sought to recover from the defendant, who was also a fa mer there, *he sura of L 1,500, for the seduction of ms daughter. Janet Allison; Mr MadaSsey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Haggitt for the defendant. Mr Macassey, in stating the case, said that the case the. jury were called upon to investigate that day furnished one of the saddest stories ever told in a court of justice. The 3 plaintiffs ought to recover from defendant damages for the eduction of bio daughter. The jury would agree with him that defendant had not only effectually ruined the g rl, but that that ruin was effected ,in a most premeditated manner. The girl was under twenty-one years of age at the time of her seduction, and consequently the only question the jury would have to decide Was that plaintiff’s daughter had been seduced by defendant, and supposing that they were constrained to answer that in the affirmative they would then have to say what amount of damage they were inclined to award to the plaintiff. The seduction was of a very grave and, aggravated character. Plaintiff was a former moving in a respectable position in Tokomairiro, and this daughter was the only child left With hi hi at the time of the Occurrence—his other children having passed * away from the old house and settled in life. Defendant was plaintiff’s next door neighbour ana nioVetl hi SoiiieWhai similar circumstances. He lost his wife four or five years ago, and not long afterwards paid attention

to plaintiff's daughter'. Plaintiffs family ware so strongly opposed to fl&y match that they set their faces against any sdrt of intimacy between them. Thg girl, haweVetj was So infatuated with defendant that she would listen to no Cotirb sel, and secret meetings were carried on, eventually ending in her ruin. No impropriety on the fiatt 8f the defendant occurred for a considerable time, fie [’proposed to the girl, she accepted him, and they continusd the friendship in becoming terms till twelve Uiqnths.aftef the death of the defendant’s wifei It Was agreed between them that the marriage, for defieiidy sake; should not take place till eighteen months after Mrs Allison death. One evening as the girl was returning home from some friend’s house she ,wd,s overtaken by the defendant, who seized her Violently and threw her on to the ground. When sho follxifl hetSelf so assaulted she struggled with her assailant, screamed out, and made every effort to retain her virtue but without success—he being a powerful man auci slid it Weak; simple creature, was unable to offer any resistance to Lim. He implored her not to reveal to her parents what had occurred, saying tbSt he bvd dprtC iiq fiai'm and would not injure her for the world, anadgrtin promising to marry her. Defendant afterwards lotlnd no , difficulty in continuing the intimacy vVblch hti had established. He suggested various reasons 10i ! deferring the marriage, and the girl, trusting implicitly in hie proiilisoS, loft hfetself completely a victim in his hands. About a ye»f dfiat the time of the alleged occurrence the girl, believing that she was likely to become a mother, spoke to fhq defendant, who denied that he was the father of the Uhild; and said that one James Anderson was the father, There was a young man, apparently respectable, of that name working in the district, and defendant had m&do a suggestion as false as it was foul in the’ hope that the girl would foster the blame on to this yoting man. Mr Macassey concluded by saying that ultimately defendant, finding that legal proceedings had been instituted, left the Colony, making over his property to bis two brothers. Alexander Fraser deposed that he was a farmer living at Tokomairiro, and was plaintiff' in the present action. He lived atTokomairiro for eight years. He had i wife living, and a family of seven children, five of whom were married. Those unmarried were Thomas and Janet, who lived with him at Tokomairiro. Janet was born in January, 1854. His farm contained 184 acres. Janet was in the habit of assisting her mother to do the domestic work about the place. He knew Wm. Allison, the defendant, who lived, when in this country, at Tokomairiro on the next farm. Allison had about 400 acres of land in the district. The defendant was a widower, his wife having died a few years ago. Some time after the death of his wife, witness spoke to him in reference to his daughter. He had some suspicion of defendant and his daughter, and weutacross the farm about seven one evening, and found the defendant concealed in the bottom ef a ditch. Witness told him that he was illpleased about his coming after his daughter, and further, that witnqss hoped he would not destroy the peace of his family, the "mo as he did that of a neighboring fanvly. Thq replied that fie would do as ho !

pleased. Allison was about forty years of age. Che ditch was on witness's farm, and he told him to clear off. Witness’s daughter was about three chains distant from where he found the defendant. Witness again spoke to defendant after the birth of the child, and asded him what was his intention regarding the daughter and the child. The defendant "It is the first time I knew that she had a child to roe.” V\ ituess replied that Was not true, as his wife had told de tendant of it before. The defendant said that he should have some time to oonsid-.r “^ e ma^er * Witness believed that . “ham was now in Melbourne. Since the birth of the child Allison contributed nothing to the maintenance of the child. To Mr Haggitt: It was last April two years witness first objected to Allison paying bis addresses to his daughter. He had been on friendly terms with Allison previously. The defendant used to visit plaintiff’s house, but not So ireqiiently after as before the conversation alluded to. He did not fosbid the defendant coming to his house, but he told him to keep away when he learned that he was keeping company with witness's daughter. The defendant used to come to the house when witness was from home. William Fraser, son of the last witness, said he had on numerous occasions seen, his sister and defendant walking and conversing together. To Mr Haggitt; Witness had formerly been on friendly terms with William Allison, but he had a quarrel with him about three years and a-half ago. Witness thought that defendant did not come to his fathers house frequently, because he knew that he was not welcome there, William Gordon, now of Dunedin, but formerly a farmer at Lovell’s Plat, said he remembered hearing ©f the birth of a child in Mr Fraier'a house. After that he wrote Miss Fraser a letter. The. defendant was With h’ltt at the time. AllisOn aSkcd him if witness had heard anything ahettt the affair between him and M:ss Fraser. Witness replied, no. Allison said that hj« was blamed for the child, and asked witness if he would wnte a letter for him to Miss Fraser. He believed there Wa9 sdr&ething mentioned about meeting Miss Fraser at the gate at at seven o’clock on Sundays euing. . T° ¥ r Haggitt i On the occasion of this interview the defendant was miiOh the Worse for drink.

Williaitt HcWitson, farmer at Tokomaiviro, said he had a conversation with the defendant about the end of August last year, after the biftb df the child. The defendant saidj “ The child is not mine* it is Jimmy’s.” Witness told him that Jimmy ought to have married- the girl, and defendant replied, “ She never asked Jimmy, as it was me the old people wanted.”

To Mr Haggitt: Witness was a single man, but Was never guilty of carrying on a flirtation with Miss Frasef or any other girl. He did not know how far a flirtation went. He was pretty often at Fraser’s house, and knew a John Fraser whom he' might have scSeti in the house. He also knew a man named James Anderson, but he did not recollect meeting him there either. James Allison, a farmer at Tokomairiro, Was a brother of the defendant who left the Colony about six weeks ago. Before leaving he transferred the whole of his property to witness and his brother. He learned from Hewitem that the defendant had accused witness of being the father of the child. Witness did not tell Hewitson that the accusation was a—— lie. He did not see how his brother could tell whether witness was or not the father of the child.

To Mr Haggitt: Witness was on intimate terms with Miss Fraser.

Mr Haggitt asked the witness if he ever had any improper intimacy with Miss Fraser?

The witness declined to answer the question.

After argument, his Honor decided tbai rts the proceedings to which the witness might be subject from answering the ques tion would not be a punishment as l or a crime, but merely of a pecuniary or civil nature, the witness Was not protected. The witness, on being told by his Honor that if he did not answer the question promptly he would render himself liable t( punishment for contempt of Court, then answered the question in the negative. To Mr Maoassey : I was not scheming for the purpose of leaving in doubt whether it was I or my brother who was the father ol the child, Hewitson will be swearing whal is false if he says that I said it was a lie when I was told that my brother had sai<3 that I was the father of the child. I paid my brother L2OO in cash, and the remainder in bills, and I got the conveyance. Mrs Fraser deposed that Janet Fraser was a daughter of hers. Before her daughter’s child was born, she had a conversation with the defendant. Witness asked him how long he was going to keep up this connection, and told him that her daughter was within a few weeks of her confinement. The defendant denied that he was the father of the child, and said It was a lie. Witness never spoke to him since. The child was born on the 21st of August last. She . had never seen her daughter carrying on jyith anyone. To Mr Hagdtt : She knew that her daughter was intimate with Wa Allison after the plaintiff had spoken to defendant about it. Witness did not want her daughter to have anything to do with Allison, and took her to task in regard to him. Witness suggested to her daughter that defendant was the father of her child, Janet Fraser said she was the daughter of the plaintiff, and was twenty-two last January, Her child was born on the 21st of August last year, William Allison was its father; no one but be ever bad any improper intimacy with her. The first time anything wrong occurred between her and defendant was about a year after bis wife’s death.. The defendant came after her about o mouth after the death of his w'.fe. He proposed to witness, and she had agreed to accept him before anything improper took place. She had been in the habit of meeting the defendant at night. The defendant took advantage of her one night returning from a neighbor’s place. She screamed out, but no one heard her. She was in the habit of meeting Allison afterwards at the gate and in the house on Sunday afternoons, when the other members of her family were at church. Improper intercourse was afterwards renewed between them. Their marriage was to have taken place eighteen months after the death of defendant’s wife, hut when that time expired he said that he would not take her until she was twenty-one, as ber father did not wish her to have him. When she first expected that she was to become a mother, she. spoke to Allison on the subject. The defendant replied that if she were in the family-way the child -Was not his, and that she might give it to James Anderson. The last time she saw the defendant was about three months before the birth of the child. On one occasion the defendant told her that he world take her in nine months after the child was bom, if it lived, and in six months afterwards if the child died. The defendant also told her that be would never marry her if she said that the child wa-5 his, and that if she would give the child to James Anderson he would do anything he could for her. She replied that she could not do that. The defendant then said that he would never speak to her again if she said that the child was his. The defendant bad never spoken to her from that day to this. The child was still living, and the defendant never contributed anything towards its support.

To Mr Haggitt: James Anderson walked home with her from Mr baton's one night about two years ago. She did not care much for defendant then, but did not tell her father and mother about his visits. She first became engaged to defendant a month after his wife’s death. That meeting was at her father’s gate, where she met the defendant, who would not let her go until she promised t > marry him. She did intend to carry out that promise, although she did not care for him. When the defendant committed the offence upon her he asked her to forgive him, and she did. At the conclusion of the case, counsel agreed to waive their right of addressing the jury, and also to dispense with the Judge’s summing up. At 5.30 the jury retired, and after an absence of only a few minutes returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the som of L3OO. The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock to-morrow (Wednesday).