Hide Article Text (OCR)
“Sunshine full cream powdered Milk is milk from selected dairy herds. The milk is continuously and rigidly tested for purity throughout the whole process of manufacture, during which nothing is extracted from it but the water. “Sunshine is not only absolutely pure, it’s so convenient and economical, too, ajzd suitable for every purpose for which fresh rtiflk is required.EuniceSportsman's Organising Couneil will conduct a street appeal next Friday to augment the funds of the Soldiers' Dependants’ Appeal.A march through Perth will take place. Under the command 01 Lieut. Col. J. R. Mitchell, the 'Jtith Machine Gun Regiment and personnel from the R.A.A.F. will takeE. Parade will start at 2 p.m.. and the it. Governor will take the salute opposite Government House at 2.30.Street AuctionAhern* Ltd. Have advised the hon. organiser (Mr. W. Xerard) that the firm would donate a dining room suite to be •old at the street auction on Friday next. July 25 in aid of the Soldiers’ Dependants'HENRY BRANKSTONE. • . I want to door my daaghtor'i name/' (Story this page.)SOLDIER CONDUCTS HIS CASE ABLYPetrol BanLONDON. Today.Rome radio announces that from October I. the sale ot petrol for private cars will be banned all over Italy, because of the difficulty of obtaining supplies from abroad.Matthew and Hilda Miller were separated four years ago. Matthew allowed Hilda £1 a fortnight for herself and baby. But when he joined the army recently, the husbandadded another 10/ a week^— *° it.®ut' thought that^was enou8^* he was mis-^ taken.tittlBl Youthful, blue-eyed Hilda MillerI Kit llJl I Nkii sought the Court's help, and a syrup*.lUBSftlpi l ISW5 thetlc magistrate raised the weeklyr Wm BbFIBIB}W*M allowance to £2/19/6.\ £1 W X' ™ hen the cue came before m«gi«trnte. : w. J. Wall work In the Married Women’# Prot«ct,on eonrt. Miller, who • appeared in uniform, was not represented by eounsd. But he showed no little ability in conducting hi* own caee.- iBlzFact remained Mr. Fred Curran pointed?ut, for Lhe wif«. when Mrs. Miller s**S bad been granted maintenance of £1 i/ .//ifIfortnight, ahe had been working aa • IUmArllUaiM Housemaid. But bad luck K.O*d her, andK BB following a spell in hospital. ahe was nofcf 1% r» A m AmIt lunger able to go out and earn her own- E R |jel living.v Further, when that £1 a fortnight■•Till Ford*r waa made. Matthew Miller waa un-r employed. Now he drawa a daily stipend— _ from His Majesty.“WT Fill ,,vYho Pa,d y°“r NepW bill? ask-H I f II m / ed the husband when given this op-■ ■ I ■ 1 M/ portunity of questioning his wife—ItH I m W was £ll(t h not pa,d*W . iffl M flB . Who paid the previoiw bill at St.■ 1 ■ ■ ■ John?”-I did.W A H H H Didn't another man pay it for you?—No. he did notWell. I gave you an extra 10/ a week when I joined the army, how in my pos-Cwdered Milk is milk the?’’'1'* than it waaThe milk i» continu- ' Millr, rfi.ln't ,n.w,r1 for purity throughout She didn't have to. Mr. WnIJwork ron-nufacture, during which eidered that, a* a ■oldier got an allow-*nre f°r h’8 w*f® “nd children. Matthew HH it but the water. Miller should be able to pay Hildaabsolutely pure, it’s so £2/19 fi a week. And he made ancal. too. suitable for °r*a th-“. ., fresh niflk is required. NOMINATIONS FORGOLDFIELDSI * CARNIVALTB Nominations have been called for■ H B HI SI tha ma,n avent* 01 th« -nnaal GoldI ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B . fields Racing Carnival.-»■**- Thswe events include the Boulder Cup■ I *11 of li miLs (£450), Hannans Handicapnwnprpfl mi Ik °( on€ m.i]* lt;£300 Kalgoorlie Cuptpwuc7ic:u miliv of u roile# f£6iV) %nd ld v,Iuej,at £60).db nnnrT Closing time for nominationa in p.m.we may jret have parents claim-ng in reject of a daughter not #«en by them for half a lifetime or by a daughter who has a hueband and familv and arn-‘INCONSISTENCYVERDICT FOR CORRIGIN CHEMIST: “I SEE NO REASON TODISBELIEVE DnEUNICE BRANKSTONEher baby was born when she was17. (Story this page.)Street Appeal Friday For Soldiers’ Dependantsany other firm* in city and *uburb# have been generous in their donation*. Other offer* will be welcomed by the organic (B6S83 or I/U4)._In Brief:Henry Brankstone, farmer of C o r r i g i n, claimed damages from Leonard Gilchrist Cooper, chemist of Corrigin, for the alleged seduction and loss of services of his daughter.You looked round the Court expecting to see shy, rosy-cheeked, pretty little Eunice Winifred Brankstone. looked in vain for her mother: middle-aged, sturdy and sturdy in the way she fought for her girl, missed the lean, wiry figure of returned soldier Brankstone.Young chemist, Leonard Gilchrist Cooper? No, he was not there either. None of the principals had come down from Corrigin to hear the reserved judgment in Henry Brankstone’s claim against Cooper for the alleged seduction of his daughter. His Honor’s verdict went to Cooper.Cooper denied hit claim and also strongly denied parentage of the stillborn baby to which EuniM Winifred Brankston* gave birth when she was only 17.I don’t want money, said the father In answer to a question at the hearing. That was the last thing that entered my mind. I only want to clear my Qlrl's name.During the case there was a highly technical four-hour argument In which obstetric specialists took port, the main question being: Could a baby born on December6, 1940. be the result of intimacy1940?with a man on February 15. IIEunice Brankstone herself gave evidence concerning her alleged seduction.In the course of His defenceCooper admitted kissing the girl and going for a walk With her. but said: I was no more friendlywith her than I would be withany other young chap or girl InCorrigin.Not only did he deny that he had been intimate with her. but he denied ever having admitted that h* was.Mr. C. O'Sullivan represented Cooper and Mr. R. Stoddart. with Mr. V. Fabriclus, appeared for the plaintiff.Even a dull judgment sounds Interesting when Mr. Justice Dwyer gives It. because, as he traces the evidenoe. accepts some arguments, topples others. It Is often very difficult to hanrd a guess which way the verdiet Is going.But this could not be clamed a* a dull judgment. In Corrigin iteelf, the caoe arouoed terrific interest, the verdict having been awaited since late May, with an excitement that fairly simmered- And the unusual nature of the eaae made it news even in Sydney and Melbourne.With telling clarity His Honor explained that it was alleged by Brankstonethat Cooper had been intimate with his daughter. Eunice, (who is under 21), on February 15. of last year, a* a rseult, •he gave birth to a stillborn child on December fi. For some time prior to the alleged incident and during the period •he was expecting the child, the daughter woe employed away from home.Cooper denied intimacy or parentage.Aa is well known, the action for seduction by a parent i« bamd on an as-•umption that the parent Has he«*n deprived of the services of his child. His Honor went on.CHILD’S “SERVICESwater.every purposeSunshinefactem powdered milkA NESTLES PRODUCTWore It not for the provisions of Sootlon 49 of the Evidence Act ofthis State, the action would clearly fall.It waa contended by defendant's eoun* sri that ao It had been established that there was. in fact, no loea of service the action must etill fail, notwithstanding provisions of the section.Having regard to the largely fictional quality of the service* of a child, which are customarily proved in these cases. His Honor continued, and certain other charaeterietice of the action of seduction I hare come to the conclusion that the proper construction to be placed on the section k that once a relation of and child is established, there •fii irrebuttable presumption of If other matter* neesmry to sustain the action are established damages are recoverable, although there has been no aervice at all, and although loss of vice if actually disproved.“UNFORESEEN RESULTS”This Interpretation may possibly M to unforeseen resuNs.. ..... -------family and separate establishment of her own That. JLeveT' doe- not lt;^°nc«Tn me.•’Sexual intercourse must be proved, though of iteelf it givee no grounds for action. Damages are not restricted to actual or calculable estimate of service# Any damage sustained by a daughter ini her reputation or prospects is not a mat-r* con#,lt;l«ratlon.’ I do not accept the plaintiff's evidence of any aggravation of his health, caused by the .hock of the news of childbirth. I find it hnrd to credit the ignorance of his daughter's condition when their story was that elie spent week-ends at their farm Turning then to the question of paternity. His Honor said:Having regard to the dates given In the girl s evidence. I must have the greatest doubt that there was the nee-essary association of two events. Only corroboration of the girl's story was the aHeged admission to her mother on the day the child was born. m ywondant denied that statement.1 laintifFs wife made two further vieits. threatened violence, and took measure# to do him harm. At that time she must have been in a highlr excited conditionConaeqiientlr I am not prepared to accept her testimony of defendant's admission. There ia a good deal of incon-■latenry in her atory.Details revealed by the girl aa to the act are not very convincing. Her attitude to the defendant afterward* seem# to be rather inconsistent with her claim that he was responsible for her condition. On a general view of the medical evidence T must exprew verv oenous doubta as to whether a child born on December 6. could have been the result of an act on February 15. in view of her state of health on February 18.I see no reason on tho evidence why I should disbelieve the defend-ant .... I must take a view that the burden of proof It on the plaintiff, and he has not established his ease to my satisfaction.Judgment was accordingly entered for;lube. or 4p.m. with the W A. Turf Club. J defendant, with co#ts.
Newspaper Details
Perth Mirror
Perth, Western Australia, AU
Sat, Jul 19, 1941
Page 16
Full Page
Clipped by
Diane M.
AU 03 Jul 2023
Other Publications Near Perth, Western Australia
Perth West Australian
Perth Daily News
Perth Truth
Perth W A Record
Perth Mirror
