Page 8 where allegations of paternity are so easily made and with such difficulty rebutted, and where there is often a strong temptation either to conceal the identity of the real father or to impose liability upon the person who is best able to bear it - that the evidence of the complainant should be approached with caution. As a rule of practice the trial court should, therefore always warn itself of the inherent danger of acting upon the testimony of the complainant in a paternity case.' This reasoning commends itself to me. The importation of an artifical criterion of corroboration in a particular class of case as a prerequisite for the Court's finding, does seem to me to be 'inappropriate in a modern system of civil trial procedure'. At the same time, however, I would confirm the need for caution in adjudicating upon the responsibility of a complainant's testimony in cases of this kind for the cogent reasons advanced by Trengove, J.A. Applying these criteria to the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that (a) the Learned Chief Justice did not err in holding that corroboration of the Plaintiff's evidence was not required as a matter of law; (b) a careful scrutiny of his judgment confirms that he approached the evaluation of the Plaintiff's testimony with the requisite degree of caution and that his acceptance of her evidence as clearly preferable to that of the Defendant, should be sustained. For these reasons the appeal on the merits should be dismissed. Insofar as damages for the assault is concerned, it seems to me that there is no basis upon which this court is entitled to interfere with the award of M100 as damages for the assault. I have set out above the Learned Chief Justice's reasoning which underpinned his substantial award for damages in respect of the seduction. 9/....