RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 202, 14 December 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COU RT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., "R.M., and H. Bastings, Esq., J.P.)

Thursday, 7th Dec.

Marshall v. Kitto —Claim, for maintenance of an illeoitima'e child, which plaintiff alleged defendant was the father of.

Mr. Copland appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant. *

This case was adjourned from the previous sitting of the Court, to allow Mr. Copland, who had volunteered to act as plaintiff's counsel, to become acquainted with the facts of the case.

The plaintiff, Elizabeth Marshall, deposed that she was a widow, her late husband having been killed at Switzers. She first became acquainted with defendant in November, 1870. About Christmas, while living in a house at the head of Munros Gully, she asked Kitto if he was the man who wanted a housekeeper. He answered in the affirmative. He called the same evening, and remained three or four hours. During the conversation, defendant remarked witness would be better as her own mistress, and said if they could agree she might be his wife. Under the impression that he was goiiisc to marry her, witness allowed him to visit her, which he did frequently, occasionally staying all night with her. Witness earned her living by sewing, washing, and charing. In April, she was housekeeper for Mr. Michael, with whom she staped a fortnight, and afterwards went to Mr. Carey's. While at Michael's, defendaut visited witness, but he did not do so at Carey's. When witness informed him she was going to town, defendant recommended her if she was pregnant to do away with the child. Defendant- accompanied her to Lawrence when she was going to town. At that time defendant regretted that he had not a few ponnds, and borrowed 10s from one of his mates t'.- give her. The child was born on the 3rd November. Kitto Was married about three months ago. He has never contributed in any way to the support of tho child: When she told Kitto that she was pregnant, he said ho had rather than £20 that such was not the r>ase. Wilkinson made her a present of the house she occupied in Munro's, and she removed it to the Spur, where she has been living for seven months.

Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy.—Witness never allowed anyone to stay with her but Kitto. "Never paid any rent to Wilkinson. Wilkinson did not instigate her to father the child on Kitto. Wilkinson paid witness for his washing only. She never offered to allow anyone to stay with her for £5. Never told Luke Thomas she would allow him to remain with her for one pound, and never gained her living hy progtihiKon.

Charles Duncan stated that he had often seen Kitto cominy from the direction of Mrs. Marshall's house, and had occasionally seen the two together. Had also seen Kitto going in and coming out of Mrs. Marshall's house. Knew nothing wrong of Mrs. Marshall's character. Witness lived close to her, and had often seen men going and coming with their washing.

Cross-examined— Mrs, Marshall pays me for what milk she gets. Witness had seen Kitto going to Mrs. Marshall's house without any washing, and coming away without any.

Mrs. Sinitns said on one occasion when she visited plaintiff, there was a man in the hnuse who she was told by her (plaintiff) was Kitto.

Cross-examined— Mrs. Marshall does not bear a very good character since her husband died. Witness had heard a good deal against her, and had cautioned her to be careful of her character. Plaintiff denied she was pregnant 14 days before the child waa born.

Mrs. Wedlock was called, but her evidence was of no importance. Thomas Wilkinson stated that he had seen Kitto in Mrs Marshall's house repeatedly about Christmas last, generally on Sunday. Witness save her the house to live in as she was a widow, and was destitute. After plaintiff had been in the house a short time, she told witness she was going to leave, as she was going to keep Kitto's house. Witness said she was foolish, .and she then said Kitto was going to marry her. In May last she asked permission to remove the house to the Blue Spur, which witness granted. Witness assisted her in making the house comfortable. She paid for everything witness supplied her with.

Cross-examined — "Witness never remained all night with Mrs. Marshall. She paid for shifting the house to the Blue Spur. Witness once supplied her with a few groceries when she was sick and destitute. Never instigated per to father the child on Kitto. Plaintiff, as far as witness was aware, bears a good character.

, Charles Jardine saicl he saw Mrs. Marshall and .Kitto walking together, and also saw the former at defendant's Uouse, but pot lately. Kitto was i sarrying Mrs. Mr rshall'.s child. Cross-examjined — Never hpard any1 hing agajnst Mrs. Marshall^ chara'c- ' ;er-. .- M. i •«.*'•» JoTuiLj.prapper, William Kell, and '-r-r .TlVoma.<i we^re called, but. being out-side-the Court; declined to put in an i appearance until their expenses were paid. ,y Mr. Copland commented severely upon the course they cbose to pursue, I'ftitd Characterised their behaviour as

low and unmanly, as they well l:new Mrs. Marshall was without means.

The Bench also remarked that the course adopted by' these witnesses reflected neither honour nor credit upon them. Mr. Copland said he would dispense with their evidence/ and called

John Rail, who stated that he had seen Kitto frequently to Mrs. Marshall's house He knew nothing wrong about plaintiff's character. She worked bard for her living.

Mr. M'Coy addressed the Bench for the defence, and called

William Thomas, who stated <h?>t on the 22nd March, while proceeding homewards, he passed Mrs. Marshall's door. At Mrs. Marshall's request, he sat down She enquired if he had seen Wilki-is«>n. They conversed about her projected trip to Diinedin, amd about Wilkinson. She asked witness to stay with her. Witness remarked that the accommodation was small, and plaintiff replied that it had answered before, and wot 1 1 do agnin. She then said that Wilkinson was jealous of her, and that she had been locked in one night with Evans and an >ther niyht with Wilkinson. » s he further stati d that Mullan was going to giv-e her 255. per week to stay with him. Witness had frequently heard Wilkinson's name mentioned in connection with plaintiff.

Cross examined — Witness was a mate of Kitto's, but had no personal feeling in the matter. Kitto never mentioned the matter until he was summoned, and never told witness what to say.

Luke Thomas deposed that in the month of February, while passing plaintiff's house, she called to him, and after asking if he had seen Wilkinson, said he could stay with her for a pound. Asked her if Wilkinson was not staying with her. she replied, " A bird in hand is worth two in. the rmsli." Plaintiff afterwards came to his (witness's) house, and he told her she had better keep away, and further, that if she did nut leave he would kick her out. Witness had heard many names mentioned in connection with hers.

Cross examined — Was a mate of Kioto's and brother to last witness. Had had no conversation with them about the case.

• Samuel Hall stated that he was in the employment of Mr. Michael in April last. Mrs. Marshall was there. She only remained there fourteen days, as she did not suit. Wilkinson a?id Mnllane came to to the liouso at different times.

Cross-examined — Had no connection with Kitto, but was on friendly terms with him. Saw Kitto at Marshall's honso oa one occasion while Mrs. Marshall was there, lie stayed there about twenty minutes. Mrs. Marshall said she wanted to have nothing to do with him.

This concluded the ease. The Bench retired lor about twenty minutes, and on returning, announced that they had come to the" conclusion that defendant was the father of the child, and that he should support it. The law allowed him the choice of either paying a certain amount per week, or a lump sum, from LlO to LSO, and it was for him to elect which he would prefer doiujj

Defendant elected to pay a lump sum, and the Bench fixed the amount at L 30 — LlO to be paid at once, LIO in three months, and LIO in six months' time.

Karris v. Leech. — Claim, LIT 10s Judgment by default for plain! iff.

Keppel v. Say. — Claim, L 3 Bs., damages-done to a dray by defendant while in plaintiff's employ, and loss of time occasioned thereby. Mr. Copland appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Gov for defendant.

Plaintiff deposed that on the 18th inst. he desired Hay to net his horses ready to go to the bush for timber. Ray took a horse named Paddy and placed him in the dray, which thereu >on backed owr and fell info a gully. Re attributed the accident fo defendant's caivlessness, as had he adopted proper precautions it would not have occurred.

Mr. M'Coy examined plaintiff, but elirited nothing of any particular moment, with the exception that on one occasion he (plaintiff) had capsized his dray. This he attributed to his own bad driving, as much as anything, and he did not attach any - blame to the horses. *• David M'JDonald and Robert Fowler stated that the sum sued for vc-as about the amount required to repair the dray,

Without calling any further evidence, the Bench remarked that plaintiff had failed to establish the main element in his case — carelessness or negligence. He would therefore give a verdict for defendant, with coats.

Mr. Keppel asked for leave to appeal.

The Brach refused to allow an appeal, but intimated their willingness to grant' a rehearing, if plaintiff could throw more light on the case.