R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2170, 21 December 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

■ MASTERTON-SATURDAY. Before H. A, Stratford, R,M. affiliation (continued). Mary Kulling, sister to the informant, gave corroborative evidence, so far as her sister's evidence as to her engagement to defendant, and his kbit of.going to her bedroom; was concerned. _ Henry Schultz gave evidence as to having frequently seen the plaintiff and defendant together. He lived next door to the Mings, and understood the two were engaged. Henry Stevens, the defendant, was called in support of the information, andi examined as to his means. He stated that he was a contractor. His only pro- ■ perty consisted in the plant he used for metalling, and was worth from £BO to £ 100. In cross-examination defendant said that he visited the Kulling family first in December last year, in consequence of an invitation received from Mrs bulling. He had tea there, and when lie left, the plaintiff and her sister went out with him. They went to church, but he himself did not go to church. He spent his Christmas holidays in Palmerston North, and went to the house again on his return and saw the whole family. He saw defendant about the middle of" Fobuary, when alio complained that she had doctors' and other bills to meet, and asked him for money. He gave her a pound. They then walked along the road and had intercourse. Tliey afterwards became more intimate. In April he had been told by a friend that he had got Miss Kulling into trouble. Ho asked hercould it be true or possible. She commenced to cry and said it was not true, but that the report had been sprfcad .by two women iu Masterton whom she knew. He told her that he did not care about such reports, and should not como to tho house again. He never spoke to her again of his own accord, but she was running after him for a considerable time, and he could not always avoid speaking to her. He never saw her|in|lier bodvoom except once, when, she was ill, nor lmd her mother ever accused him of putting pontiff into trouble.

Re-expined by Mr Beard,—He had known plaintiff for about ten years, and been intimate with her since February last. He would swear that he never spoke to her in November 1884. He believed he had been at her parents' house once, per. haps, in November, but lie did not think she was there at the time, There wero bo many girls in the family that he could not tell very well, This concluded the case in support of the information. Mr Skipper called no evidenco for the defence, but made a long and able speech, in which he set out that it was highly improbable that his client was guilty, and that the evidence of the informant was not supported by that of the other, witnesses. His Worship considered that the informant had made out a good caso. There had been somo hard swoaring—he would not say on which side-but there had been a most remarkable lack of memory on the part ot the defendant. He ordered defendant to pay the doctor's and nurse's hills incurred by informant (LG 10s, and LI 10s), and left it with the parties to settle what should be the rate of contribution in support of the child. If no agreement were como to he would call the case again and settle the matter