AFFILIATION CASE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4371, 27 January 1922, Page 2

AFFILIATION CASE.

DENIAL OF FABBNTSHIP. A— c

A claim for affiliation was made by Elsie Bidois (Mr Porritt), against Harley Campbell (M'r Montague), at the Paeroa CoUrt yesterday, Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., presiding; Mr Porritt said defendant was living at plaintiff’s house ifor some two years, .and there were twp children, of which defendant was the father. He was paying a certain amount to-< wards maintenance now; he had promised to put the last child in a home in Te Aroha.

Elsie Bidois, complainant, in answer to Mr Porritt, said the first child was born on May 27, 1919. Since that ■time defendant continued to live as a boarder in her father’s house, and intercourse had been repeated. He went away some time ago, and never came back to the house. She had asked defendant tp marry her in order to give the second baby an Honourable name, but defendant said his solicitor advised him not to marry, as it would be three years before he could get a divorce. She then sued him, thinking that he might get away before the second child was born. Mr Montague: When did defendant finally leave your place?—! ciouid not Mr Montague explained l that the defendant had previously agreed, by arrangement at the court, to pay 12-5 6d towards the cost off maintenance of the first child. The subsequent evidence of the defence was to the effect that defendant was not the father j>f the second child.

Margaret Burnell, maternity nurse, said she had nursed defendant during confinement.

Mr Montague said defendant had never denied that he wag the father of the first child, but he/lid deny the fatherhood of the second.

Harvey Campbell, defendant, ship’s engineer, gave evidence, substantiatea by a diary, to the effect that he was not with complainant during tne period at which conception must have taken place in respect to the second child.

His Worship said there was sufficient corroboration ofi evidence, with!in the meaning of the Act, to establish paternity. Moreover, thb second child was distinctly similar in appearance to the first one. The defendant, therefore, would be judged to be the putative father of the child, and an order would be made accordingly for maintenance, 12s 6d per week, and costs.