POLICE COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 47, 16 December 1871, Page 8

POLICE COURT.

Thursday, November 14 (Before J. 0. Crawford, Esq., B.M ) AFFILIATION—BARNES V BROWN. Mr Borlase appeared for the complainant, Mr Buckley for the defendant. Mr Borlase.. having recited the facts, called the- following evidence : Elizabeth Barnes: I am the complainant, and am nineteen years old. I bave lately been in service, and had a female child on the sth November last. Mr Brown is the father of the child. He gave me £4 or £5 before the birth of the child, stating that I should go to the doctor and get some medicine. This was about five months before the child was born. I understand his object to be that I should endeavor to bring on a miscarriage. He said if 1 did not succeed in doing this he would be a done man for ever j that his character would be gone, that he would have to leave the country and go to America. This of course was the result of my having told him the condition I was in. He told me to go home and fall down so as to induce miscarriage. I have seen him since the child was born, but be would have nothing to say to me. I told him the child was his, ond he should support it. He said it was nothing to do with him. Crossexamii e I by Mr Buckley : The child is now three weeeks old. I cannot s.-»y how long it is since the defendant gave me any money. I did not make any attempt- to father the child upon anybody else. The defendant wished me to do so, but I declined. I do not know any person named Simon, neither do 1 know a Simon M'Lellan. I was servant at Mr Crawford's, v and there was a man servant there, but I very larely saw him, and seldom had uieals with him. I knew jauthing whatever abonihjm, and did not even

i know his name. There were two other , female servants in the house beside myself. I swear positively that beyond speaking to ' him I never had anything to do with the man servant at Mr Crawford's house. I was also i servant at Colonel Header's. There was another servant with me named Eliza Wright.. Mrs Reader told me that I was in a certain condition, and that I had better go to a Mrs Follis. I did so, and when at her house. I : mentioned the name of Mr Brown. I did not i say to her that Simon M'Lellan, at Mr Crawford's, was father of the child, nor did I aek her to go with me to see Simon. I never told Mrs Follis that Simon would not marry me because he was already a married man, and , had two children in Scotland. Nor did I ever try to father the child on a gentleman in the Grovemment service. Mary Goskin : I am grandmother of the 1 complainant. After her confinement, my • daughter, the mother of the complainant, and ; I met Mr Brown on the beach on the 25th November. Mrs Barnes spoke to him about the baby, and he said it did not belong to him, 1 but that ho would not mind giving £5 or £lO to have no more to do with it. Cross-examined by Mr Buckley: This took place near the Government fence. We did not " bail the defendant up" in the street. I. did not hear him Bay that he would neither give £5 nor £SO to settle the matter. I have had no conversation with my daughter or with ■ the complainant about this matte, and lam merely here to explain what I know about the facts. 1 Mary Barnes :I am mother of complainant, who was confined at my hou?e at Makara about three weeks ago. After the birth of the child I met the defendant on the beach, and charged him with being the father, and asked him to contribute to its support. He denied all knowledge of the matter, but offered me £5 or £lO to say no more about it, which I would not acsept. I saw the defendant again last Saturday in the bar of his public house, and he then ordered me to leave the premises. Cross-examined by Mr Buckley : He did not tell me to take the child to the proper father. I told him he was the father, and he asked me to wait upon the flat and he would come and give me the money he had offered. I ' did not say that it was too far to take the child to the proper father. I told the defendant I would take £SO and drop the case, or if he did not pay that amount I would expose him. I am not aware that my daughter has charged anyone else with being the father of the child, nor do I know any person named Simon M'Lellan, or ever heard ray daughter say anything about him. She told me about a fortnight before the birth of the child that the father was Mr Brown. This was the case for the plaintiff, and Mr Buckley requested to be allowed to put the defendant in the witness box. His Worship said it would be establishing a dangerous precedent to allow the defendant to give, evidence in such a case. Mr Borlase agreed that it would be contrary to all English law on the subject to allow a person in the position of the defendant to give evidence. He could no more go into the witness-box than a person who was brought up for assault. A man in such a position would say " No, I did not assault you," and the defendant in this case would say " No, I had nothing to do with the girl." In a case of misdemeanor the person accused could not give evidence, neither could the present defendant. Mr Buckley submitted that the information must be quashed. Under the civil law an action could not be brought by the complainant, who was under age. Mr Borlase : But there is a law in New Zealand which does not exist in England, which enables a minor to sue. Mr Buckley: Yes, for wages. Mr Borlase: Then give us our wages in this case ; that is all Ave ask for. (Laughter.) Mr Buckley then called the following rebutting evidence: — Harriett Follis : I am a monthly nurse, and know the complainant. After she left Mrs Reader's employment she came to me in June. She said her mistress had sent her home to go to a doctor, as she thought she was in a certain condition. I asked her a few questions and satisfied myself as to her condition. I then declined to go to the doctor with her. She at first strongly denied that she was with child, but afterwards admitted that she was. I advised her to go and see the father of the child. She did not wish to do so, but I told her it would be much better that she should do so, because it would soon become known. After this she again denied that she was in the condition in which I knew she was. I asked her who the father was, and she appeared puzzled, but after some hesitation said it was a young man named Simon, in the employ of Mr Crawford. I accompanied her to Mr Crawford's house, and stayed inside the gate. Complainant was told that Simon was out. After this I was at Mr Kirkcaldie's, where complainant called on me, and told me that Simon could not do anything for her, as he was already a married man, and could not marry her. She said he had entered her bedroom in Mrs Crawford's absence. His Worship : Mr Buckley, do' you still urge the objection that the girl is under age. If so, I think it is fatal to the complainant's case. Mr Buckley : No, your Worship, I shall not rely upon that; but the provisions of the Destitute Persons Ordinance lay down two conditions which have not been complied with in this case. I submit that the case cannot be sustained for the timple reason that the vidence of the mother herself is contradicted by uu independent witness, and could not be taken as being of any weight whatever. The whole of the evidence for the complainant was really worthless. I Mr Borlase: I think there are many material facts vrhisb have in no way been dis-

posed of. The defendant had never denied his intimacy with the girl, and there was proof of the transaction in the Court. Under these, circumstances I think it is onlv fair that he should make utu for' what he has done. The evidence clearly proves that he is the father of the child, and it is a wretched and a cruel thing that he should have forced a young girl to come before the Court with such a matter when ho must know that he is the cause of her fall. If the Court desired corroborative evidence of the part the defendant had taken they had it in the fact that he had supplied the complainant with money to go to the doctor with. The counsel for the defence has tried to shake the testimony of the poor woman who had been placed in the box, but he has not disposed of the fact that the defendant had offered £5 or £lO to buy them over. Mrs Follis has told the Court that the complainant hesitated when she asked her who the father was ; and why did she hesitate? Because the.defendant had persuaded her to say that he was not the father. She had endeavored to screen the father from exposure, aud this is the treatment sb.3 meets with for so doing. This is her reward for her fidelity to a designing man. She is left on the world to bear all the shame and misery, while he is allowed to shuffle out of it and go scatheless. No attempt whatever had been made to prove that the girl was in the habit of walking with another man, or that she has ever been found in any improper position, or kept unseemly hours. It is hard, indeed, that insinuations should be thrown out to damage the character of the girl, without the slightest shadow of proof being produced to show that there is any truth whatever in the accusations made. His Worship : I think it would be better that I should adjourn the case for a week, for the reason that it is possible the parties may wish to come to some arrangement, and that it is unjust to make accusations against a young man who has had no opportunity of defending his character. The case was then adjourned, and the Court closed.