THE MISTAKEN IDENTITY CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8529, 7 September 1907, Page 6

THE MISTAKEN IDENTITY CASE.

INFORMATION DISMISSED. Mr W. P. James, S.M., was again occupied, yesterday morning, in hearing the case against Bertram Hastings,' who was charged with having failed to maintain his illegitimate child. The girl concerned had previously sworn that she knew the defendant in Christchurch as "Jack Holt," in June, 1906, but defendant was equally emphatic that he was not in Christchurch at that time.

Hastings stated in evidence, yesterday, that he was in Wellington on June 21st, 1906, on the date of the late Mr Seddon's -funeral,

Ernest Ball, hairdresser, of Foxton, said that defendant was in his shop on different dates in June, 1906. Arthur Wiiliam Bradley, hairdresser, of Foxton, said thatH'-vst-ings was in Foxton continuously from May 6th to June 6th, 1906. On the latter date defendant cut a suit for witness.

Mr H. C. Robinson, counsel for defendant, asked leave to put in two affidavits from persons who knew defendant.

Mr Pownall, who appeared for the plaintiff, objected to the affidavits for the reason that the witnesses were not subject to cross-examina-tion.

The Magistrate upheld the objection.

Mr James, in reviewing the case, said it was one of the most cxtraordinai'y casss he had known. He considered that it was clear that defendant was not . the person who went under the name of Holt in Christchurch. He felt all along that the case was one of mistaken identity, and in addition, defendant's behaviour in Court and his manner of giving evidence had been in his favour. His Worship believed that all the witnesses for the prosecution had acted honestly and had only said what they believed to be right, but in the face of the evidence for the defence it was impossible for the defendant to be in Christchurch in the month of June, 1906, and become intimately acquainted with the girl. If, at any future date, it was found that the evidence for the defence was false, there was the remedy in a charge of perjury. The information would be dismissed.

Mr Pownall applied for a dismissal without prejudice, but Mr Robinson objected on the grounds that the defendant had already had the case hanging over his head long enough, and it was not fair that he should have the chance of another prosecutoin.on his mind in future.

The Magistrate dismissed the case on its merits, and fixed the costs of the case at £7 10s.