A Black-hearted Deceiver.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 415, 11 February 1890, Page 3

A Black-hearted Deceiver.

PARTIALLY PUNISHED. A case of a painful nature was heard by Mr Booth. R. M., on Saturday morning, being one of affiliation, in which Julia E. Hooper was the informant and Henry Wilson the defendant. Mr DeLautour appeared on behalf of the informant and Mr Kenny for the defence. Mr DeLautour said he thought that all persons except those whose duty required them to be present would show good taste by retiring from the Court; and the remarks had the desired effect, He said the matter was one which it would have been far better to have kept out of Court, and he had written to the defendant trying to induce him to do what would be proper under the circumstances, but no response had been made, and as the family was not in good circumstances and the informant could not maintain even herself while she had the two children (twins) to attend to, there was no option but to come to the Court and ask that the defendant should be compelled to fulfil what was then his natural duty, to contribute to the support of the children of which he was the father.

The informant evidently keenly felt her unfortunate position, but gave her evidence in a very clear manner. A little over three years ago she had become acquainted with the defendant, and a month after the acquaintance began he made a proposal of marriage. She replied that there was time enough to think about that, but on his repeating the proposal a week later she said she was agreeable if they thought they could get on together, and he said he saw no reason why they should not. He said they should be married as soon as he had got a house built on the Kaiti. On one occasion he took liberties with her which she resented, and he told her she was hard-hearted and as they were shortly to be married there was nothing to fear. She gave way and the same thing had subsequently occurred. When she became troubled as to her condition she confided with the defendant and he promised to marry her at once. He was to have married her on the 24th of May, but when the day came he said he wanted to go to the races. He kept company with her for some months afterwards and continually repeated his promises, but always made some pretext for delay. On his asking her if she would consent to be married and remain at service until the house was ready she replied in the affirmative. He subsequently offered her £16 to leave the district, but she refused. He said he waa a man in constant work, and would always give her anything she wanted—ha would never let her want for anything; but she still refused. The state of things continued until October. He said she could take his word he would never disgrace her, He had for some time promised her £5 to buy clothes and in November he gave her £3. Subsequently he advised her of a place to go to for her confinement and said that by the time aba got strong again his house on the Kaiti would be ready and they could then get married. He kept company with her up to a week prior to the birth of the children (Dec. 9th). A fortnight later, in consequence of what her brother had told her, she went over to the Kaiti to see defendant. He chided her for coming out so soon; he expressed his sorrow at his delay, but said he was going to borrow money to get the house completed and they could then get married at once. He paid another visit to her house on Christmas night, and said lie would soon have the title deeds of the house and they could get married

at once. The last occasion he had spoken to her he said, “ My intentions are honorable; I know you have had to suffer a lot, but I will make it all right.” He never gave her any reason whatever for his conduct.

Cross-examined by Mr Kenny: She had some years previously been engaged to a young man, but the match had been broken off mainly because her parents did not approve of the choice, Had not been in the habit of keeping company with young men besides the defendant. Had attended weekly meetings of a girls' class in town, but had no other companions homewards excepting female friends or one of her brothers. Had on no occasion kept company with persons named nor with any other men. Edward Hooper (informant’s father) gave evidence as to Wilson asking him if he would be agreeable to the proposed marriage; he said they had been keeping company for a long time, and he had no objection. Defendant stated that he wished the marriage to take place directly he had his house on the Kaiti finished. Subsequently the girl told her mother of the trouble, and immediately on his hearing of it he walked to Barker's to see the defendant. The latter said he knew of the trouble, and was very sorry, but he would act honorably with the girl, and repeated his promises. He came to the house on the following Sunday and spoke in the same strain. On a later occasion witness and his two sons met defendant on the Taruheru bridge and told him it was time he fulfilled his promise. He again expressed his sorrow, but made the excuse that he had no money to procure the certificate. His son Frank offered to lend him the money, and defendant agreed to accept the offer and carry out his promise on the following weekday. He was at the house several times after the children were born, and still maintained his promise. On the matter being further pressed, he said he would see Mr Barker (his employer), make arrangements, and then send a note to the family, Mrs Hooper said they would be more certain of getting it if it was addressed care of one of her sons, who was employed in an office in town. The next thing they heard of it was an anonymous letter, through the address mentioned, disclaiming any intention to marry the informant.

To Mr Kenny: When he saw defendant on the bridge had not threatened to bring a Supreme Court action and make it expensive tor him, Defendant had never expressed doubts as to the paternity of the children. Had heard that defendant was in town and he and his sons went to the bridge, knowing that they would meet him there. His son Frank lost his temper, called Wilson a mean skunk, and threatened to strike him.—Mr Kenny : Why did he do that when the defendant had (so it is alleged) promised marriage on the following day ?—Witness : Put yourself in the same position—a sister dishonored—and what would you do?—he simply lost his temper, and called him a mean hound, He (Wilson) crawled down the road, and said, " You would not strike a sick man who has just been to tbe chemist’s for medicine "

Frank Hooper gave corroborative evidence. He had met defendant when he was coming back from the chemist's, and he spoke on the subject, and Wilson assured him he would act honorably in the matter, On reaching the bridge his father upraided the defendant for the part he was acting and accused him of having offered the girl money to leave the place. Defendant admitted having done so find expressed his sorrow. He promised the marriage should take place the next day, witness offering to lend the money for the certificate. As defendant had shown a tendency to shuffle, witness had lost his temper and they had a warm argument. It having been insinuated that informant had been dismissed from situations on account of impertinence, evidence was given proving that her employers gave her an excellent character, and she had left the situations of her own freewill.

Mr Kenny said he had been instructed that a witness he had subpoenaed would prove that Miss Hooper had been in the habit of keeping company with the persons she had sworn she had never associated with. Defendant was a man of means, and it was possible he had been selected as being the best mark. But when the witness alluded to was put in the box her evidence, instead of being contradictory, completely supported that of the informant.

Defendant then went into the box and said ; I have known the informant for about five years. The marriage that was mentioned I know nothing about. It is entirely of her own construction. I remember telling her I thought I would get married on the 24th of May. I did not get married on this date mentioned. With reference to meeting me at the bridge I refused point blank to have any marriage. My reason for refusing was that informant had told me that another person had often seen her up to the gate of the house at which she was staying. She had often spoke of going with another young fellow who worked at the place at which she was staying. I objected at the bridge. Hooper and his son followed me up the road. I was going to the chemists. Coming back I met the three of them again. I left them without giving them any decided answer. To Mr DeLautour : Knew nothing about the anonymous letter that had been written. Did not send to Hooper's any word why he had broken off, because he had made no arrangement. Had not been to the house for four months before the births. What the Hooper’s said was entirely of their own construction. Had been to the house on one occasion after the birth of the children—stayed outside, the people bring on the verandah, Mr DeLautour: Why did you go there then ? [A mutter in reply.] Mr DeLautour: You went there with no motive ? —just out of curiosity? Witness: No motive at all. Mr DeLautour: Will you solemnly swear you rode from Mr Barker’s to that house and want In, with no motive at all ? Witness: I had been there lots of times ; I had no motive myself, Mr DeLautour: You just went as the wind drifted you? Witness; Not particularly,

Mr DeLautour said the case was clear enough ; there was no denial and there was absolute corroboration. He was content to leave the case as it stood. His Worship said he was quite satisfied from the evidence that defendant was father of the children and should contribute to their support. An order would be made for 15s a week from that date, together with the medical expenses, and solicitor’s fee £2 2s. Defendant stated that he only earned five shillings a day and food, and on Mr DeLautour pointing out that his own side had proved that he was the owner of property, defendant said both his Ormond and Kaiti properties were mortgaged. His Worship did not think the defendant's conduct in the matter entitled him to much consideration, and the order would hold good. He did not wish to say all that he felt in regard to the defendant's conduct,