ALLEGED MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8526, 2 September 1907, Page 6

ALLEGED MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

A REMARKABLE CASE. The adiourned case in which Bertram Hastings was charged with failing to maintain his illegitimate child, was called on at the Masterton Magistrate's Court, on Saturday morning, before Mr VV. P. James, S.M. Mr Pownall, who appeared for the complainant, stated that the whole case resolved itself into a question of defendant's whereabouts between June 3rd and June 26th, 1906. Complainant stated that she knew defendant in Christchurch by the name of Holt.

Martha Chilingworth, who kept a boarding-house in Gloucester Street, Christchurch, said that a man named Holt stayed at her house between May 30th and June 28th 1906, and then left for the North Island. The Magistrate had previously ordered the defendant to go into the body of the Court and mix with the other persons there so that he would be less conspicuous. The witness was then invited to go into the body of the Court, and see if she could recognise among those present the man Holt, who had stayed with her in Christchurch. She recognised defendant as the man Holt, though, witness said, he had got much thinner. She did not remember his voice. Defendant had a short conversation with witness, and denied ever staying at her house in Christchurch. Cross-examined by Mr H. C. Robinson, who appeared for the defendant, witness * stated that defendant only had a room at her house. He was only a "casual" boarder, and used to go out in the mornings before breakfast and return late at night. Eva Chilingworth, aged 11 years, daughter of the last witness, also gave evidence, and recognised the defendant from among the other people in the Court as the man Holt, who had stayed at her mother's house in Christchurch. Walter Leslie Carrick, tailor of Masterton, said defendant was formerly in partnership in Masterton with him. The complainant was employed in witness' shop for a week and during that time defendant never went into the workshop while the girl was there. About June last the father of the girl came into the shop and asked defendant whether he had been in Feilding about eleven months ago, and defendant said no. he had been in Christchurch about that time. Mr H. C. Robinson for the defence, said he had affidavits from a tailor in Foxton and other people certifying to defendant having been in Foxton in June, 1906. Mr Pownall objected to the affidavits being put in on the grounds that they were not evidence. The Magistrate said that strictly speaking the affidavits were not evidence, and in this case there was a difficulty in accepting them as the parties could not agree to them. He could not accept the affidavits in the face of the evidence already given. Mr Robinson went on to say that he intended to call evidence of a boardinghouse keeper, and a tailor in Foxton to prove that the defendant was in Foxton in June, 1906. The question of accused's identity was still open. He contended that there was a lack of corroboration in the evidence of the other 3ide. Counsel asked that the case should be adjourned so that he might call evidence from Foxton. The case was accordingly adjourned until Friday next. The Magistrate remarked that the case was a remarkable one.