CHIPPING NORTON.
CHADLINGTON DIVISION PETTY SESSIONS.
January 26th.
Before Rev. T. Harris (Chairman), Rev. W.E.D. Carter, J.F. Penyston and R.S.B. Bavis, Esqs.
Affiliation Case.
This was an action brought by Fanny Pratley, single woman, of Leafield, against Gough Pratt, farmer, of Leafield, to show cause why he should not contribute towards the maintenance of a child born 22nd January, 1886, of which he was alleged to be the father.
Mr. Galpin, solicitor, Oxford, appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Mace for defendant.
Mr. Mace stated that this case was brought before the Bench on the 19th of May last, when Mr. Mallam, of Oxford, appeared for complainant and it was then dismissed. The present application had been put off as long as possible, and was now within 14 days of the expiration of the time wherein it was possible to bring an action of this kind. Mr. Galpin contended that complainant was quite justified in taking out the summons. One year was the time allowed by the Act of Parliament, and they had kept strictly within their right. The incidents of the case he should not go into. The complainant would swear upon oath defendant was the father of her child, and no other man, and he would challenge any rebutting evidence to be brought upon that heard.
Fanny Pratley deposed: I am a single woman living at Leafield. I have known the defendant for thirteen years. I have kept company with him since I was 19 years of age. Now I am 32. I was against the defendant's mother's wish, because I was a poor girl. The engagement was broken off for some time, and he kept away from me. I had a child by him five years ago come July, and he would not own to it until I summoned him. He settled out of court by paying 2s. 6d. per week for the first child. On the occasion of the last intimacy, the 30th April, 1885, I was setting up with mother finishing some gloves which had to go home next day. The reason I recollect the day is I was doing a particular sort of work at the time. He came whistling for me, and I went out. I knew his whistle, as he has whistled for me times out of number. When I went out I saw Gough Pratt, the defendant, and went for a walk with him across his paddock. He is the father of my child.
Mr. Mace: Now, Miss Pratley, do you venture to tell the magistrates that Gough Pratt said he would marry you? He has promised me times out of number.
Was any time fixed?- No, he said he would have me, and the promise was made both before and after the child was born.
Did he ever make you any presents?- No.
Did you ever go with him to his house?- No, it was kept secret. The first child was born in July, 1882; he denied the paternity, but agreed to pay 2s. 6d. per week to avoid public exposure. The money was sent by the policeman.
Was not the arrangement made because Mr. Pratt objected to have any connection with you?- No, it was not Mr. Pratt's wish, but his mother's.
From 1882, when the first child was born, up to 1884, did not Mr. Pratt speak to you once?- I did not speak to him.
Used you to go out to meet him on the farm?- No, sir.
Now don't you remember going to the farm and seeing Mr. Pratt there, and didn't he go away to get out of your road?- He did not.
Didn't you say "Come and look at your daughter?"- I did not, I spoke to the carter.
Did you not say to the carter "Put this child on the horse and take her to Mr. Pratt?- No.
How many times have you tried to catch hold of Mr. Pratt?- Never; he's tried to catch hold of me a good many times.
What took place in October, 1884?- He came to call me out. I thought he had the little girl's money, which was overdue.
Between October, 1884, and April 1885, how many times did he speak to you?- A good many times.
In October was it simply in reference to your quarter's money you went out?- He said he would send it by the policeman.
Didn't you say "If you send it by that pretty man, I shall lock him up, and keep him all night?- No.
Do you remember meeting defendant on the highway between the "Fox" public-house and the school?- No.
Do you remember going to his mother's house?- I have been at different times.
Did he not turn you out?- He closed the door.
The evidence of the mother complainant, and that of Mr. John Coombs was then taken.
Mr. Mace having addressed the Bench, the magistrates retired to deliberate, and after being absent about ten minutes, dismissed the case for want of corroborative evidence. |