RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4370, 5 January 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq||R.M.) A. de C. Potterton v. John Algie, and 8. Shaw Driver, for non-vaccination of their children. »

In these cases the Act having since been complied with, the informations were withdrawn. A TRIVIAL CJABGE. Mrs Callan was charged on the inform mation of "William Plant with unlawfully assaulting his daughter, Mary Anne Plant, on the 28th December. Mr Miller appeared for the complainant and stated the case. Dr Callan admitted his wife having struck the girl, but pleaded that she had knocked down his youngest child, and on the spur of tlie moment Mrs Callan, on • coming out of the house, retaliated by striking the child gently on the cheek. His Worship said an assault in the eye of the law had evidently been committed, but it was such a trivial one that it would have been better settled out of Court. He would fine defendant in ihe nominal penalty of Is and costs, 9s, but would not; allow aDy solicitor's fee. ANOTHER ABBAULT. . Charles Rolton was charged with assaulting William Bettis by striking him on the nose on the 18th of December. William Bettis, an old fisherman, said that a number of boys were pelting him with coal on the evening in question on Shortland Wharf, defendant being amongst them. He said he'd hammer some of them if they didn't desist. They did not stop, so he kicked one of them, when Eolton struck him a blow on the nose. He laid an information, which he afterwards withdrew on his promising to pay the expenses. When asked for the money Rolton refused to pay, and said he could do what he liked. Chas. Rolton said the first money he earned he would pay. The boys and old Bettis wdre larking, and all were .throwWg coal. Bettis kicked .a boy on the leg, | and he went and pushed him. He kicked j the boy in the leg, and witness'pushed | him again ; Bettis then kicked him. The old man was drunk, and he fell down. He didn't like to see him kicking the boy. , He would pay him the first time he could. The R.M. said it was a case of believing the likeliest story. A big lad like Rolton should not have been there; by doing so he encouraged them in their larrikinism. He believed the complainant's story, and would therefore fine | Rolton 10s and costs, 38s. AFFILIATION CASE. George Henry Rolton, an elderly mau, was charged on the information of his daughter, Eliza Priseilla Rolton, with neglecting to support his illegitimate child. Tho plaintiff, in her evidence, said she was 18 years of age. In the beginning-of last year she- was in the service of Mr Marshall, draper, at his house at Parawiai. On several occasions her father saw her home from his house to Mr Marshall's at night time, and on more than two occasions he on the road home committed the offence which led to the birth of a child. The first' occurrence took place about a month before she left Mr Marshall's,' and the second soon after. On a subsequent occasion he attemp- : ted a like offence, but she successfully

resisted. Went to Auckland in May to stay with her mother, who questioned her as to being enciente. She denied it, but her mother took her to Dr Hooper for examination and the doctor said it was as her mother had expected. She then admitted the truth, and informed her mother who was the father of the child. It was the first time she stated to any one that her father was its parent. About a week after returned to the Thames. The child was born^ on 22nd October. Did not see her father after her return to the Thames. Had never allowed any other person to have intercourse with her.

Mr Marshall stated that plaintiff was employed by him as.a nurse girl for about sis: months. Left his service about the end of last January. Was allowed out one night a week, and every second Sunday. Had to return home at 10 o'clock. TJiaderstood her father generally saw her home. Never saw him.

Agnes Tyman (who objected to give evidence in the full Court, was assured by the Bench that no questions of a delicate nature would be asked her),.said she koew defendant and his daughter the plaintiff. Lived in the same house in the capacity of house keeper. The p'aintifl was in service at Mr Marshall's from early in 1881 to February or beginning of March, 1882. Then went to live at her father's house. Generally went to her father's house on her evenings out. It was not a custom of the defendant to see his daughter back to Mr Marshall's, but he had done so a few times. After leaving her situation and going to Jive at home she complained of menstrual irre» ftularity. Never told me that the defendant had attempted to take any liberties with her.

Emma Rolton, a sister of plaintiff's, doposed that sometimes her father saw Lizzie home to Mr Marshall's, and sometimes witness went with her. The plaintiff was keeping company with one George Cleave in February or March of last year.

Mrs Kolton, mother of the girl, was called, but the Bench said it did not think that the wife of the defendant should be allowed to give evidence against her husband. This case might develope into a criminal one, and then the evidence would be inadmissible.

Upon being asked if he had any statement to.make, the defendant said he was innocent of the charge made against him. He could produce witnesses to prove that his daughter was keeping company with one George* Cleave. He called Aj;nes Tymau, who swore that in February when the plaintiff was in service at Mrs Marshall's, she was keeping company with Cleave, and he had walked home at night with her. After she had left Marshall's she, in company with Cleave, walked to Parawai and returned at ten o'clock at night on one occasion. Her children had told her that Cleave and the plaintiff had frequently gone home from church together. Remembered one night Eliza asked her to unhook her dress, and she found the back of it covered with burrs and weeds. Did not tell her father of this until after her return from Auckland.

The defendant produced his log to shew his movements during February,' but the; Bench reminded him that the month of January was unaccounted for. The defendant then stated that he was physically incapable of doing anything of the nature of the offence he was charged with, owjng to suffering from internal injuries.

The Bench adjourned the-. Court until two o'clock.

Upon the Court resuming at,. /'two o'clock, the Resident" Magistratfrfistated that if Mrs Rolton volunteered her* evidence, he would take it.

Mrs Koltoh, wife of.;defendant, stated that her daughter arrived at her house in Auckland on the 24th of May in good health. Saw afterwards she .was in the family way. In Sept. Dr Hoorier examined her, and said she had been in that condition for "seven months. She said that her father was" the parent of the child. -Sheitft" oitee wrote and told the defendant \^hat she had learnt. The defendant declined to ask this witness any. questions. The Bench said it found the case one of the most difficult it had ever had to deal with. The defendant was living in a state of prostitution and, there was little wonder his child had strayed. It was very embarrassing to decide in the matter. The only testimony of any value was that of the daughter, and the denial of the father. The Court had it left "in. its power to attach what weight it chose to either. The evidence showed that the father had seen the plaintiff home about the time when some man must have interfered with her, .It was-very hard to think that such a circumstance should lead to a committal of "so serious a crime as had been alleged ha&taken place. The circumstantial evidence, coupled with the testimony of the girl was all he had to place against the denial of the defendant. Only on one particular had the girl varied from her evidence on a previous occasion. Mrs Tyman swore that the girl had never told her of her father's complicity. The only, suspicion that could be thrown on the veracity of the girl was the evidence concerning her and Cleave. It appeared in» ; credible that after-being ejttnined she | should, when pressed by her mother, invent on the spur of the moment, such a horrible story as she told her mother in Auckland. There was no corroborative evidence regarding the tr-lilt; of the '?''- fendant, as he was never see*} '" »r second'person" to rioUe the Without it the Bench couM n^di- ■ wise than dismiss the case. '<TC-