CHIPPING NORTON.

CHADLINGTON DIVISION PETTY SESSIONS - Wednesday.

Before R.S.B. Davis (in the chair), C.D.A. Samuda, T.H. Burbidge, and J.F. Maddox, Esqrs.

Affiliation Case.- William Edwards, of London, was summoned to show cause why he should not contribute towards the maintenance of the illegitimate child of Mary Pratley, single woman, of Ascott-under-Wychwood.- Defendant did not appear.- Mr. Mace, who appeared on behalf of plaintiff, said that defendant had promised time after time to assist the woman but he had never carried out that promise. He also admitted the paternity of the child, as the letters which he (Mr. Mace) would hand to the Bench would prove.- The plaintiff, Mary Pratley was called, and stated that she was a single woman, and that she gave birth to a daughter on the 29th of July last, of which the defendant William Edwards, was the father. She had been in service as a general servant at 9, Palace-road, Hornsey, and while living there became acquainted with the defendant, who was then a grocer's assistant, and came with goods to her mistress' house. She had kept company with him since March, 1891, meeting him regularly on Wednesday evening, and also on alternate Sundays, and he used to visit her in the kitchen when her master and mistress were out. She left her situation last November, finding that she was enceinte, and went to Handley-road and afterwards to Crouch End, and defendant came to live in the same road. During that time he continued to keep company with her. In April last her sister Sarah and herself met the defendant by appointment in Mount View-road and had a conversation with him, and when he was told of her condition he said he must make the best of it, and that he would marry her. She had since received a letter from him in which he owned that he was the father of the child and promised to do anything that he could within reason. He had promised to marry her, but had not carried out the promise.- Sarah Pratley, sister of the plaintiff, said she knew defendant kept company with her sister for 18 months. She remembered that during a conversation with him she asked him if he was going to marry her sister, and he replied "Yes." In April, 1894, in consequence of a letter she received from defendant, she made an appointment to meet both her sister and defendant in the same road, when she told him the condition her sister was in and asked him what he meant to do, and he replied that he meant to marry her. He did not deny that he was the father. She left them and they went away together. There was no quarrelling in any way about the matter. She had seen them two or three times some days out walking together, and once she saw them in Highgate Wood, about 9.30.- An order was made for defendant to contribute 3s. 6d. a week until the child attained the age of 13, and to pay all costs.