RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3533, 22 April 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) The AfiUi&tion Case.

The case of Short v. Roberts was brought up this morning for Judgment. The evidence of Drs Kilgour and Huxtable was I-.ken as to the medical examination, but it was riot material in any point.

His Worship in summing up spoke as follows .—According ta the Act, no one can he saddled with the paternity of the chiild, without the mother's evidence has some outside corroborative testimony. The-case which I hare to decide is peculiar, and I trust an exceptional one. The age of the parties concerned certainly makesjit the latter. There is no third party implicated in the case, although public suspicion points to a third party, but as to which of the parties, defendant or the man at whom suspicion points, is the father of the'childj no question arises. In taking a review of the evidence in the case, wbioh is very voluminous and conflicting, it is difficult to find any absolutely corroborative outside testimony. The plaintiff was living with her em* ploy or, and although no direct evidence is obtained against him, the public impression was that he was the father of the child. In fact at the time that she was pregnant it was the popular idea that she had been married to her employer, and it is statedthat a rash of people to his shop took place one evening to see if that were the case. The case is very remarkable from the fact that until the. time of the girl's confinement no suspicion of the paternity attached to Short, but that instantly after the birth

the onus was placed upon him. Another remarkable fact was that not oven the employer, nor the girl's mother, nor sister were aware of the gill's condition uutil she was close on her confinement. This appears remarkable. Tile onlj outside corroborative testimony was that of Mrs Mott, who asserted that she told the defendant that he was the father of Mies iiobertg' child, and that in reply he said "If that's the bofher, I'm ruined." The boy explains that by saying that he did not make use of the self-same words, although the sentence wus similar, with the exception of one word. The discrepancies occurring in the evidence on both Hides are numerous, and I must confess that I am totally unable to find any corroborative evidence on the side of the plaintiff. Mie avers that the defen-. dtint was frequently criminally intimate with her, and he on the contraiy denies ever having any connection whatever". In this last a discrepancy occurs between the defendant's statement of what took place on that occasion, to Mr Brassey in crossexamination—the accouut being materially different from that one given by him to Mr Miller. I have taken a good deal of consideration on the points on both sides of the question, and must confess that I cannot find anything to justify my taking any other course than th;»t of dismissing the case. The case will be dismissed, bat will be left an open question, and if. any new evidence can be brought forward by the girl the case will be reopened. If the criminal intimacy was of so frequent occurrence, someone must have known about it besides the parties concerned. The case is dismissed.