A CURIOUS CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9587, 6 September 1909, Page 5

A CURIOUS CASE.

(Abridged from the "Wairarapa Daily Newa.")

At the S.M. Court, Carterton, on Friday last, the case Sadie Doubleday( Mr C. A. Pownall) v. O'Keeffe (Mr G. H. Cullen) was called on. This was a case wherein defendant was charged with being the father of an illegitimate child, which he failed to support. The case had been adjourned from Masterton, and Mr Pownall intimated that he had received a telegram purporting to come from his client instructing him to withdraw all proceedings against O'Keeffe. He doubted the authenticity of the telegram, and proposed to call O'Keeffe as a witness to prove whether the telegram was bogu=s or not. O'Keeffe had been subpoenaed as a witness, and he asked him to step into the box. Mr Cullen strongly objected to this action. He objected also to the case proceeding at all, as Mr Pownall had no locus standi in it, as he had received a letter from his client instructing him to withdraw the action. He (Mr Cullen) read out a copy of such letter,which stated that O'Keeffe was not the father of the child,, and regretting that she had caused him so much trouble and annoyance. Mr Pownall said he knew nothing whatever about that; and had never seen it He again asked Mr O'Keeffe to get into the box. Mr Culleta again strongly objected. He objected to the whole proceedings, which he termed unwarranted and irregular. Mr Pownall insisted on his request, and the Magistrate, after intimating that any question which might incriminate the witness need not be answered, ordered O'Keeffe to go into tha box. O'Keeffe did so, stating at the time that hi j Wellington counsel, Skerrett and Wylie, had advised him not to. Mr Pownall submitted that Skerrett and Wylie were not kings paramount. Witness then sot into the box, and the examination proceeded. Mr Povwnall: Your name is John O'Keeffe?—Yes. Mr Pownall: You are a farmer at Otaraia—Yes.

Mr Pownall: You are charged with being the father of an illegitimate child?— Yes. Mr PownallThree very reluctant "Yesses" for a start—not bad! (To witness). You produced a telegram in the Maaterton Court, withdrawing the caae against you?— Yes. Mr Pownall: Where did you get it? —Through post. Mr Pownall: Who wrote it for you?— Don't know. Mr Pownall: Was it not typewritten by a clerk in a lawyer's office in Wellington?— Witness would not answer.

Mr Pownall, addressingg the court, said the girl had been cajoled by j O'Keeffe, and the wire had come. | He wanted to know from witness who j write and signed the telegram. j Witness: You will never find out from me. Mr Pownall: You are defying the Court?—No lam not. Mr Pownall: Do you kr/vw where the telegram was written and sign;d? —Witness remained silent. Mr Powall reiterated the question. Mr Cullen interposed that he had instructed his client not to answnr. Mr Pownall: Oh, have you? Turning to witness, he repeated the question. Witness still was silent. Mr Pownall: Do you decline to answer?— Yes. Mr Pownall: Was the telegram signed in the offices of Skerrett and Wylie. Witness: Doubtless Skerrett and Wylie will give you all the information you require. Mr Cullen again expostulated heatedly upon the action of Mr Pownall in inrieavouring to conduct a case | in which he had absolutely no locus standi. The proceedings were unheard of, f Mr Pownall intimatpd that if witness still refused to answer his question he would withdraw the case. Mr Cullen strongly objected ti this course also, unless the costs of the action were saddled upon Mr Pownall. His Worship: I cannot see how I can do that. Mr Cullen: Mr Pownall is appearing entirely on his own account, his client having withdrawn the action. Therefore the costs should lie borne by the losing side, and that was Mr Pownall. After further argument his Worship allowed the case to bewithdrawn, and declined to make an order for costs.