THE AFFILIATION CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2241, 13 July 1908, Page 1

THE AFFILIATION CASE.

DELANEY V.'LESLIE

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.

At tho Magistrate’s Court on Saturday, Mr AV. A. Dill-ton, iS'.M., delivcr- : ed the following judgment in the -affiliation case, Margaret Delaney (Mr T. Alston Coleman) v. Norman Leslie (Mr E. H. Mann):—Tho ovidonco of the complainant and defendant is most contradictory, and tliero is no doubt but tlii.it one or the other of them has committed most deliberate perjury. I do not think, howovor, that it is necessary for me to go beyond the medical evidence to enable mo to arrive at my judgment. The evidence of Dr. Smith, who was called oil behalf of complainant, is that tho child in. question was brought to him for treatment on tho &th of March 1903, and that-it had every appoaranco of being a prematurely born child—7 or 8 months. It may have been 7 months, lie based his opinion upon certain signs recognised by the medical profession, and principally upon the unformed condition. of the toe and linger nails. Tho witness concluded by 6aying: “I am sure it is ~i 7 months’ child.” Tlireo medical practitioners were called on behalf of tho defonco, tho first being Dr. Hallon, who is at presold practicing in Opot-iki. He stated: “1 was practicing at To Karalca in December and J anuary last and attended‘Margaret Delaney, the complainant, at her brother’s house at AVhatatutu. I arrived after the birth of her child, which had not been in any way interfered with, and attended to the child’s mother in tho usual way. The child was a strong fully-developed child and displayed no signs of prematurity. It cried lustily and the circulation and respiration were strong, and the proportion and development of the limbs were excellent. In consequence of my noticing tho unfortunate position of tho complainant who, I was in-, formed, was unmarried, I spoke to Frank Delaney, complainant’s brother, recommending him to take steps in his sister’s interest, to try and get the father of the child to assume his responsibilities, lie stated that lie know who the father was, and went oil to give me certain dates, which ho stated his sister had given him, to show who was the father. I then stated th.vt it would bo impossible to establish paternity from the dates given, as the child would then be premature, which the present child was not, so tar as I can recollect, — about the end of May was the date mentioned’when familiarity first begin. 1 advised Delaney to see if.complainant could be induced to make turther statements disclosing who was the real parent, as, from the information supplied, I could not give evidence in support of a claim against tho person wlioiu the girl stated to be the parent. I told him that os liis sister had been employed in an hotel in New Plymouth, previous to coming to Poverty Day, and temptations were numerous in an hotel, she might find it difficult or inexpedient or at any rate to bo unwilling to disclose further facts. I offered, and ho agreed, that I should question the complainant and explain the position to her. This I did, but she denied* any previous familiarity before coining to i’overty Day, and confirmed the statement made to me by her brother, and claimed that the child was premature. Owing to the statements made to me, and tfie complainant's statement that the child was premature, I examined the child carefully, and in my opinion the child was conceived early in April. If tile child had been conceived at the end of ay as stated by complainant, tlio evidonco of prematurity would hive been sufficiently conspicuous to leave no doubt in my mind. I saw the child again on the ldth. of January, when it was sulforiug from slight opthalmia, which ] prescribed for. I pointed out to complainant that as she was able to do so, tint she should suckle the child herself, in which case there was no reason why it should not thrive. I told her tnis because, in my experience, illigitimate children, if bottle fed, -do not do well, and often die. thick treatment of a child would make it more difficult (or anyono, seeing it subsequently, to decide whether the child had been born prematurely or not. It becomes increasingly diflicult, after a short time from birth 'to distinguish the signs of prematurity in a child. At the time of the'birth of tho child, I had no previous knowledge or acquaintance with either complainant or defendant. To the best of my recollection defendant’s name was not mentioned at tho time of the birth of the child. About tho 16th of January Frank Delaney asked mo to nuke a statement in writing in support of complainant’s claim, but I told him I would declino to make any statement until my fee was paid for attendance on the case. Since coming to Opotiki I received my fee with a request that I would communicate with himself or his solicitors. I wrote to his solicitor saying that I was unable to give evidence in favor of complainant, sinco which I have heard nothing until I was notified of defendant’s application to take my evidence in Opotiki on his behalf.” Dr. AA’illiams was then called and stated that defendant came to see him on January 3rd, 1908, and told him that a child had been born at Wliatatutu, and that ho was alleged to be the father, which was not true. Defendant wanted witness to go to Whatatutu t 0 see the child, but ho told him that the best person to do that would bo the medical man who attended tho child’s mother, The witness further stated that a properly qualified medical man in attendance at tbe birth would always be quite certain if a child was prematurely born, as it would bear certain signs which would be recognised by a medialman. I should say he could tqll without doubt. It would become difficult to tell some time after birth. I could not speak with certainty after eight or nine weeks. Dr. Scott next gave evidence and corroborated that of Dr AVilliams. He stated, that in his opinion, a qualified medical man in attendance at the birth of a child could make no mistake in determining tho prematurity or otherwise of a child, and' that the doctor who attended at the confinement is the only person qualified to form an opinion. Ho further stated that if a child was brought to him nine weeks after birth tbit lie would not care to express an opinion as to whether it was prematurely born, or a full-term child. If the evidence of Dr llalien is correct, and I see n 0 reason to doubt it, then defendant cannot be the lather of the child -in question. The doctor,- according to his evidence, made a careful examination of 'the child, and has given his reason for so doing, and ho says distinctly that the child was not prematurely born. Dr. Smith, who was called on behalf of complainant, did not see the child till it was 9 weeks old, and the eviI denco of Drs. AVilliams and Scott is

that it is most difficult to .decide -after timt bipso of timo whether tlio child was or was not prematurely born, it is obvious that Dr .Hallon was in a bettor position that Dr Smith to judge whetlior tho child was or was not prematurely born, and lie says that it displayed no signs 'whatever of prematurity. Upon the evidence before mo I cannot adjudge tho defendant to be the father of the child, and for tlio reasons given the complaint is dismissed. Mr Mnnil applied for costs and the Magistrate, allowed £l7--15g Oil.