GROCER BOY'S LOVE

NZ Truth, Issue 1203, 20 December 1928, Page 3

GROCER BOY'S LOVE

Aftermath of Midnight Stroll With Housemaid YOUNG HUSBAND PAYS (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Christchurcli Representative). s With the approaching responsibility of a home builder falling upon him, a young grocer boy, Arthur Cedric Schenkel, went about his" work m Lyttelton, looking, forward with pride to the day when he and his wife-to-be would share their difficulties, and live happily m each other's company. ' - But lurking about him was the sinister shadow of an untrue love—or was it a passing" fancy? At all events there was an indiscretion, and the price had to be paid.

WHEN Nellie Eleanor Baker (24), went to reside with her aunt and uncle m Lyttelton she knew no one but the two relatives who befriended her, , for both her parents were 4ead. Two weeks passed happily by iv her new home until she secured a position m a boarding-house rhahaged iby a Mrs. Napier. It was while engaged here that Nellie met Schenkel, who paid a daily call with the 'grocery requirements of the landlady. According to the girl, no friendship was allowed to develop, nor did the conversations at the door ever wax to any definite degree. But it takes a lot to curb the spirit of youth, and the grocer boy suggested a moonlight walk. This was arrangred near the end of November, and aa ________________________ a result intimacy occurred. The girl, giving evidence m an' action brought b y _____ the police against . Schenkel for an affiliation order, told Magistrate Mosley she had never been out with, or spoken to, any other man m Lyttelton but Schenkel. When Schenkel was spoken to about the girl's condition he denied all responsibility for it. Under cross-examination by Lawyer F. S. Wilding, the girl said she knew there was a man boarding ih the house named Schofleld. but she never had anything to do with him and denied any wrongful relationship . with him. • Counsel: Schofleld disappeared from Lyttelton about the time you were m trouble? " ■ The girl: I could not say where he is. He was m Lyttelton when I left there. ■ Did yoii not discuss with your aunt the possibility of Schofleld being the father of your child?— No.

Yet no step was taken by you to prove that Schenkel was. responsible? —No. Tou know the defendant was married m May last?— l heard he was. I was m the home at the time. Counsel interjected at this stage that the defendant had made a statement to the police admitting intimacy on November 1, and the case rested on a matter of dates. In answer to a further question by counsel, the girl "said she was not mentally strong when she went to live with her aunt. # ■ Annie Louisa Foreman, the girl's aunt, residing m College Road, Lyttelton, said she met the defendant m the street one evening, and he said he had been taking the girl home. Witness -warned Schenkel not to take the '■ girl out again as she was at the .time not very strong mentally. In February or . March she found "-"""" that the girl was m a certain condition. When she complained to Schenkel about it he denied paternity. The magistrate Informed counsel that a prima facie case had been established, as intimacy had been admitted. Lawyer Wilding did not proceed with his defence and submitted to the order of the court with the remark that the mistake m the date had apparently been made. by his client.' . Questioned by the magistrate as to his means, Schenkel said he was married m May and had one child. His wages were £2/10/- a week and it took him all his time to make ends meet. He was due for a rise m wages next month. ** . An order was made saddling. Schenkel with paternity and requiring him to contribute three shillings per week towards the maintenance of , the child, which is at present under the care, of the State.

Due For Rise