took the witness stand in Supreme Court yesterday.

But as she held the bible in her right hand, she took one look at defence lawyer Mr. Archie Warner, burst into tears and ran from the witness box screaming: "I can't do this.'' The married mother of two small children returned some 10 minutes later, showing no signs of emotion.

A 51-year-old Sandys Parish man has denied the charge.

The woman told the court that she came home in the early hours of February 15, 1992, opened the sliding door and took off her shoes after calling out to her (alleged) father. She said they talked about a man from Middletown, Pembroke who had died.

After their conversation she said she fell asleep but the television was still on.

She said she was awakened by the defendant who was rubbing his hands between her legs. "I asked him what he was doing,'' she said. "And he told me it was because he loved me and that he was taking care of me.'' "I pushed him off. I told him my period was on. He said: `I can't help myself' and told me not to scream.'' "He put his hand over my mouth. When he put his hand over my throat I thought he was trying to choke me.

"He put his arm around my neck and pulled me to the floor. I was trying to fight him off.'' Mr. Warner suggested that she concocted the whole story because the defendant had refused to allow her to bring her two children to live at his house.

The woman rejected his suggestions.

Mr. Warner then asked why the defendant would ask her to live with him and take care of his two sons when she did not take care of her own children.

She admitted that she "sometimes takes care of (her own children) them, but they were looked after by others.'' Earlier, the woman's mother told the court how she was forced to give up her daughter because she could not take care of her.

She said she told the defendant she was pregnant and that he was the father.

"He told me it's not his child but after she was born he would come to see her.'' The mother said the defendant had lived with his alleged daughter at a foster home. "He took her for outings occasionally.'' But she was unable to explain, if she was certain that the defendant was her daughter's father, why she left his name off her daughter's birth certificate.

The trial, before a seven-woman, five-man jury, continues this morning.

Under reporting restrictions which came into effect on June 1, 1993, it will be illegal for The Royal Gazette to print the defendant's name whatever the outcome of the trial.