sexual relationship continued up to the beginning of last week's trial.

"I had sex with him so much that I couldn't count it if I tried,'' she told the Supreme Court jury on Friday. "I'm not making it up.'' The 34-year-old defendant faces three charges of having sexual intercourse between January and June 1996. Neither the defendant nor the girl can be named for legal reasons.

Yesterday the girl told the seven-man, five-woman jury that she had sex with the man "numerous times'' -- up to last Wednesday night -- after filing the Police complaint.

She claimed she had refused to tell anyone of the sexual acts because she did not want her uncle to get into trouble.

"He has never really done anything wrong to me,'' she said. "It's not wrong to me, it's wrong to you.'' According to the girl, the case was only brought to the court because she was unable to keep secrets.

She also said the man promised to give her $1,000 if she lied on the witness stand.

In a day long cross-examination, defence lawyer Archibald Warner attacked the consistency of the girl's accounts.

In the original Police statement, the girl alleged she first had sexual intercourse with the man on January 3.

She said she specifically remembered the day because it was the first day of the school term and also the birthday of a family member.

But Mr. Warner suggested the day she saw the man was actually February 6.

He also rejected much of the girl's account of the events which led to the first act of sexual intercourse.

According to the girl, she met the defendant by chance while walking home from school.

She told Police the man asked her to enter the car and they proceeded to talk and kiss each other for about ten to 15 minutes.

Mr. Warner said the girl entered the car without permission and that his client told her he did not want to see her.

When questioned about where the second incident took place, the girl said she could not remember if it occurred at the defendant's home or at Fort Hamilton.

She said she was unable to distinguish or remember the details of the sexual acts because there were so many.

The third incident is alleged to have taken place after the girl returned home from a hospital stay.

Yesterday she gave a detailed account of the day's events and surroundings.

She said she went up to his house and they "just ended up having sex'' while a friend of the defendant was outside.

She described the act as quick and said neither she nor the defendant were completely undressed.

But in the statement given to Police, she said she was called by the defendant and invited to his home to make love.

Once there, the two completely undressed twice because a friend interrupted them but then left.

She said the defendant kissed over her entire body and they had intercourse.

Mr. Warner charged the discrepancies in the sexual stories were due to her imaginative lies.

He suggested the stories grew with each retelling as the girl tried to impress her listeners.

But she said: "The details might be incorrect, but it did happen.'' Mr. Warner described the girl as an obsessive and manipulative young woman who pestered the defendant.

He said there were times the defendant was forced to "chase the girl away''.

The girl admitted she had broken his air conditioner and destroyed some of compact discs.

But she said she never visited the defendant without first being invited and could not have known where to find him if he had not told her.

Mr. Warner pointed out a separate allegation had been made by the girl against another man.

The case was later dropped, but he suggested that it displayed her tendency to begin matters without a full understanding of the consequences.

Crown counsel Charlene Scott asked the girl to explain why she made the allegation against the other man.

The girl said she was in a relationship with the man and he told her he was 19. She later found out he was much older and she wanted to punish him.

The case continues today before Chief Justice Austin Ward.