Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 03 Mar 1926
Page 8 Column 6 & 7
PATERNITY OF CREECH CHILD.
CASE DISMISSED AT FIRST HEARING.
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE GIRL'S STORY.
SUCCESSUL AT SECOND HEARING.
At the Taunton County Petty Sessions on Saturday, Ida Louise WILLIAMS (21), single woman, of Ham-road, Creech St. Michael, summoned Edmund TROTT, of the same address to show cause why he should not contribute to the support of a child of which she alleged he was the father. The case was before the Bench last August, when it was dismissed, but on this, the fresh hearing, Mr. F. P. TYRRELL, of Bridgwater, who appeared for complainant, submitted there was sufficient additional evidence on which the defendant could be said to be the father of the child.
Mr. E. H. C. WETHERED, instructed by Messrs. CLARKE, WILLMOTT, & CLARKE, appeared for the defence.
The magistrates found in favour of the applicant.
At the commencement the Chairman (Mr. Wyndham N. SLADE) remarked that the case was an unpleasant one, and gave permission for anyone who wished to do so to leave the Court. A number of ladies took advantage of this, but reappeared in Court after the adjournment for lunch.
Mr. TYRRELL, for the complainant, said he proposed to call a number of new witnesses, and submitted there would be substantial additional evidence from which the Bench could say that defendant was the father of the child. The complainant was seen on a large number of occasions to visit the defendant's house, sometimes defendant's sister being there and sometimes not. These occasions included Whit-Monday, 1924, the 24th July, and August Bank Holiday of the same year. It so happened that the period between the last of those dates and the birth of the child was exactly nine calendar months.
“FOR GOODNESS SAKE BLAME SOMEONE ELSE”
Complainant, in evidence, said she gave birth to a male child on the 9th May, 1925, of which she alleged defendant was the father. She had known him for a long time, and in fact lived next door, only 50 yards away. She had often called at the house for meat and milk, and sometimes defendant served her. At other times she went in the evenings to see defendant, who also had a stall in Taunton market, and she had met him going home on a Saturday evening, defendant driving in a trap and she cycling. They used to see each other after church and go for a walk. On Whit-Monday afternoon they went for a cycle ride, and misconduct took place. On July 24th her mother went to Creech fete, and she (complainant) went to TROTT's house. On that occasion and also on the 4th August misconduct took place between them. When she told TROTT she though something was wrong he said “For goodness sake blame someone else; don't blame me.”
Cross-examined by Mr. WETHERED, complainant denied that George TROTT, brother of defendant was the father of her child.
COMPLAINANT AND DEFENDANT'S BROTHER.
Mr. WETHERED: Are you aware that George TROTT marked on a calandar in the public house the date on which he though the child would be born? - Complainant: Yes, sir.
And that was only two days out. Didn't someone find you and George TROTT in the wash house in the second week in October, 1924? - That's a lie.
Counsel, after remarking, “You say a number of other people who you wanted to give evidence wouldn't come.” suggested that complainant's father had stored furniture for free for a Mrs. SEAMAN, and as she did not come to Court to support her (complainant's) story she had since been charged rent. - This complainant denied.
Did you ask Mr. J. C. TROTT to give evidence, and he refused because he said he didn't know anything about it? - No sir, he said he didn't want anything to do with it.
You have stopped Edmund TROTT coming from church, and he has told you to go away, because he didn't want anything to do with you? - No, sir, he has never refused me until he knew what had happened.
WHY DID OTHER PEOPLE TALK.
Further questions were put to complainant respecting young men with whom, it was alleged, she had been seen walking out. - Complainant denied going out with any other young man.
Mr. WETHERED: Have you ever charged either of these young men with being the father of the child? - No, never.
Did a man, named COX, come to you in October, 1924, and ask you what was meant by his being charged with being the father of the child? - Yes, he said there was a rumour about to that effect.
How did it get about? - Other people will talk.
Why should other people say that he was the father if you had never been seen out with him? - Some people will say anything. People do talk in these villages.
How did people know you were in this condition? Were you notorious in the village, and do you know that your name was a common topic in the public-house at that time? - I have never been out with anyone.
How would they know if you had never been out with anyone except Edmund TROTT? - He might have told them himself.
Mrs. Ellen WILLIAMS, mother of the girl, also gave evidence, and complainant's two brothers spoke to having seen their sister and Edmund TROT out cyling together.
IGNORANCE.
William Thomas THRESHER, slaughterman, of 2, Govier-terrace, Staplegrove, denied having been out with Miss WILLIAMS, but stated he had seen her out with Edmund TROTT.
Mr. WETHERED: What did you say to Edmund TROTT when he charged you with being the father of the child? - I did not say anything. I put it down to his ignorance.
Why didn't you deny it? - I didn't want to deny it. I suppose I ought to know my own mind. I am old enough, and ugly enough, and big enough.
Have you said that if you could get an order for ten silling <sic> against TROTT you would marry the girl? - I only told my friend so in a joke.
When did you tell him that? - After the child was born.
Were you seen out with the girl in 1924? - No, sir. I have never been out with a girl in my life.
John Charles TROTT, of 74, East Reach, Taunton, a new witness appearing on subpoena, said that formerly he was living-in at TROTT's, but when he left he was not on friendly terms. He also referred to Miss WILLIAMS' visits to the house. He had been to church with defendant, and complainant used to meet them afterwards and stay out talking to TROTT. Witness had never been out with her in his life, nor had he seen her out with other men.
Mr. WETHERED: Did you say you would not give evidence last time because you knew nothing about it? - No.
You were not on the best of terms when you left TROTT's employ? - No. I owed him six pounds, and he put in a claim for £76, and tried to ruin me.
Is it because you have to pay up that you are giving evidence? - No, sir. I came here to tell the truth.
Is it since you paid this six pounds to the Official Receiver that you have remembered these incidents? - No, sir, I am not her to tell a pack of lies.
There is a river at the back of TROTT's house. Have you ever been on it in a boat with complainant? - Only when TROTT has been there.
IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE AND DAIRY.
Robert John HUHES, motor driver, said he lived in the house next to defendant, and on one occasion he heard Miss WILLIAMS laughing in the slaughter-house, out of which TROTT came to shut the door.
Mary Jane HUGHES, wife of the previous witness, in reply to Mr. TYRRELL, said he had seen Ida WILLIAMS in TROTT's house many times, both in the kitchen and in the sitting-room. On such occasions Miss TROTT was about, while Charley TROTT also came in and out. She had, in addition, noticed Ida WILLIAMS many times in the out-buildings. She remembered going for the milk late one Saturday night in September when she saw TROTT come from the slaughter-house, and she heard Ida WILLIAMS laughing and talking as she went in. Witness had never seen complainant out with other men.
Annie WIDGER, of 18 Court, High-street, Taunton, wife of Samuel WIDGER, stated that in 1921 she was living in Ham-road, Creech. At that time she was dealing with TROTT, and had seen Ida WILLIAMS on his premises, having tea many times. She had also seen the girl with her arm around TROTT's neck or round his shoulder. She had likewise noticed her walking with TROTT on a Sunday evening after church. In September, 1924, witness had seen Ida WILLIAMS and TROTT looking through the dairy window about 3.30 to four o'clock.
OUT WITH OTHER MEN.
By Mr. WETHERED: The debt TROTT sued her for was for meat. It was a wrong debt. - an outrageous debt, because he had agreed to let her have meat in return for her allowing him to put his cattle in her orchard. Between 1920 and 1921 she had seen Ida WILLIAMS having tea in the kitchen. She would have been about fourteen at that time.
Alfred POOLE, engineer, of Creech St. Michael, mentioned that he saw the parties walking home together one Sunday evening. He denied having been out with WILLIAMS.
This ended the case for the applicant.
Defendant, giving evidence on his own behalf, in answer to counsel, said his brother, George TROTT, went away to Swindon on March 31st, 1925, and, as far as he knew, had been living there since. Witness had known Ida WILLIAMS since she came to Creech to live 10 or 11 years ago, and to his knowledge she had never had tea in the kitchen or any room in their house. She might have met him when he was coming from church, but he had never gone for a walk with her, or for a bicycle ride. He had told her that he did not want to meet him when he was coming out of church. Even if she did not mind it, he did, and she know how people would talk. He alleged he had seen her out with Jack SWEETING and Albert POOLE, and several other young men. He had seen her and THRASHER cycling together.
Mr. TYRRELL, after defendant had made a lengthy statement: Then you say that Mrs. WILLIAMS, Fred WILLIAMS, Clifford WILLIAMS, and the other witnesses have sworn falsely against you? - Yes, sir.
ALLEGATION AGAINST GEO. TROTT.
Mr. SPRANCKLING, architect, of Taunton, next described plans of the house, which were consulted by the Bench.
George COX, of Creech Heathfield, stated that he had never seen Edmund TROTT walking out with the girl. In September, 1924, he went to the house to give an order, and found no-one there. He heard whispering in the wash-house, and knocked at the door, which was opened by George TROTT, Miss WILLIAMS was inside the wash-house.
Mr. TYRRELL pointed out that at the last hearing of the case he said this incident took place in October.
Witness: Perhaps I was right, then.
Rosa Jane TROTT, sister of defendant, stated that she was at Weston-super-Mare on Whit-Monday, 1924, with Charley TROTT. She was at home on August Bank Holiday that year. Ida WILLIAMS, she added, had never had tea at her house when she was present. She had never seen any act of familiarity between her brother and the girl. “My brother,” she went on, “has never had a young lady to my knowledge. I have never seen him out walking with a woman in my life.”
Ronald HEMBROW, of Ham-road, Creech St. Michael, corroborated TROTT's statement that Miss WILLIAMS followed him to church on one occasion. TROTT told her he did not want her following him.
Mrs. Flora SEAMAN, of Victoria Place, High-street, Taunton, said she was living in Creech St. Michael in 1924, and in August of that year she alleged she saw Ida WILLIAMS with William THRASHER, sitting on a gate in Ham-road. THRASHER had his arm around her.
CORROBORATION OF GIRL'S STORY.
Addressing the magistrates, Mr. WETHERED said that Parliament had recognised that, when dealing with cases of that nature, the evidence of the mother must be corroborated in some material particular by independent evidence. When there had been a hearing, and the case had been dismissed upon its merits, as that case had been, it was evident the case was doubly difficult when it subsequently came again before another tribunal. Evidence in re-examination, said Mr. WETHERED, was of lower value than evidence at the first examination, owing to sympathy coming into play. Emotions were also aroused between relatives and friends, so that even honest people who would not commit perjury, by talking among themselves, often imagined things that never happened. He contended, in conclusion, that the girl had told a different story in the first case from what she had that day. There were discrepancies in several important points. The case for the plaintiff, in his opinion, had been severely shaken, and he submitted that no case existed to justify the Court reversing the former decision.
The magistrates retired for a brief consultation, and, on resuming the sitting, the Chairman remarked that he understood the Bench at the last hearing dismissed the case on the grounds that they did not consider there was sufficient corroboration of the girl's story. In the present case they considered there was, and they had decided to make an order against the defendant. He would have to contribute 10s a week until the child was 16 years of age. They also allowed the applicant £2 6s 6d for expenses, an advocate's fee of £3 3s. and witnesses' expenses. Recognisances in the case of appeal to Quarter Sessions were fixed at £15, and one surety of the same amount.