Page9 To the uninitiated , the approach of the Learned Chief Justice may, at first blush, appear to be somewhat annual. However, there is support for his view in the authority he cites. 1 must also record that a first reaction to the quantum of damages awarded is that it is clearly generous. The following considerations do, however, have to be taken into account: 1. Plaintiff was at the time the seduction took place, a very young girl of 16 or at the most 17 years of age. 2. She was to the Defendant's knowledge an orphan and totally destitute. 3. By taking her into his home at this youthful age he, in a sense, assumed a kind of trusteeship over her. 4. He is a mature man whose judgment and sense of responsibility should have been well developed. 5. He acted throughout in a callous, inconsiderate manner. Moreover he persisted, right up to the time that he appeared in this court, in maintaining an arrogant attitude totally devoid of compassion or concern. In Defendant's favour one must take into account the fact that he did not persist in his seduction of the Plaintiff and that the pregnancy was the consequence of a single series of aberrations during the one night. Weighing up these factors, I have come to the conclusion that whilst the award is clearly generous and may well have been more than I would have awarded, the disparity is not such that 1 deem it appropriate for this court to interfere. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs. I order that such costs are to go into the revenue of the Chief Legal Officer under the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Legal Aid Act 1978 (Act No. 19 of 1978). 10/....