AFFILIATION AND MAINTENANCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2621, 18 August 1923, Page 2

AFFILIATION AND MAINTENANCE.

HARTLEY V. SMITH. PLAINTIFF SUCCEEDS. At the local S.M. Court yesterday the Magistrate (Mr J. L. Stout) gave his reserved judgment in the case Hartley (Mr Bergin) v. Smith (Mr Cooper), heard at the June sitting, as follows: — “This is a complaint under the D. P. Act 190 S, asking that the defendant be adjudged the putative father of complainant’s child bora on the 22nd February', 1923, and for maintenance for such child and expenses of birth. “The complainant’s story* is uncontradicted by* defendant and as I believe her story* the sole question - for my consideration is whether there is sufficient corroboration in some material particular. “It will be noticed that the date of conception is given as about the middle of June, after the 19th, and that the child is therefore, if that date is correct, an 8-months child. Dr. Wyllie, who attended the complainant, has given it as his opinion judging from the skin of the child, its length and weight, that it is an S-months child, and I accept his evidence on this point. “The corroboration relied on is as follows: —(1) The fact that defendant had been on friendly terms with (he complainant for 5 years and had visited her often on Saturday evenings at her mother’s house at Foxton beach during that period. (2) That in .Tune of last year, shortly before the alleged date of conception, he visited complain-

ant at her sister’s house in Foxton on at least two occasions, once when her sister was present and once when tier nephew was present he came inside and complainant sat on his knee in front of the fire. Also that during this period on one occasion lie and complainant went out and talked on the verandah and wei*e outside a considerable time and to a late hour. (3) The fact that when the complainant’s mother wrote to him asking him to call and see her as she wanted to have a talk with him he did not reply. (4) That defendant's mother met the defendant on the beach road and he got of" liis bike and she told bun she ■\;ntr 1 to speak to him about Ivy. He replied lie did not understand Ivy. They were then interrupted and he promised to cal! and see her but (Vd not do so. Tie, however, did recount that he had been several times to see her but that she bad

had company. “Evidence to amount to corrobor-

rLi'.n need not be evidence of the actual act of intercourse but should be evidence tending to show that thei’e is a likelihood of the defendant being the father of the child. “In this ease, though the corroboration is not very strong, it is in my opinion, sufficient. The parties had been on intimate terms of famibarity. The sitting of complainant 0,1 defendant’s knee, which shows something more than mere friendly acquaintance.

“I therefore, adjudge the defendant to be the father of complainant’s child, bom on 22nd February, M 23, and order him to pay £l4 14s foi expenses of birth and maintenanee at x’ate of 15/- a week as from date of birth and costs. Solicitor £3 35.”