SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2615, 24 September 1909, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN DIVORCE. (Before Mr. Justice Cooper.)

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23.

EDWARDS v. EDWARDS,

The hearing of the petition in divorce by Eleanore Edwards against William Edwards was continued yesterday before Mr Justice Cooper. Mr L. T. Burnard closed the case for the petitioner, and Mr W. L. Rees opened the defence. Counsel said that the respondent and his half-sister would absolutely deny the allegations made by the petitioner and her daughters. William Edwards, in the box, said that the accusation of misconduct with his half-sister, Annie Sarah Edwards, was quite untrue. He also denied that his wife was compelled to leave Mm by his conduct towards her. In 1905 lie let his wife go to work at her own request, because she said there was not enough for her to do at home. Edwards was left with his eldest daughter, who, however, knew nothing about housekeeping, so he objected to the arrangement. Then his wife got Annie Edwards to come and keep house, paying her 10 a week. Annie Edwards was a daughter of his father and his stepmother. The latter asked him to take charge of the girl. She was depressed and lonely when she first came to New Zealand, and seemed to look on the respondent as a father.. In 1907 a man, who was connected with the family by marriage, visited the house a good deal, and paid so much attention to Miss Edwards that he was asked to discontinue his visits. The girl subsequently had a child, of whom the man was the putative father. When his wife left him in 1907 she did so of her own free will, and a deed of separationwas signed. On the 20th of July, 1907, the respondent received a letter from his wife asking to come back, but he saw his solicitor, who wrote Mi’s Ed u wards, with, the result that she did not return. Subsequently Edwards beard rumors about himself and his half-sister, and went to see his wife, who denied having circulated them and expressed disbelief in their veracity. From 1904 to last April, so far as the witness knew, his half-sister had been on perfectly friendly terms with his family. The respondent was cross-examined at length by Mr Barnard as to his alleged relations with his half-sister. He did not assault his wife on the morning his wife took her departure. His daughter did not threaten to go for the police. He remembered striking his daughter Emma, but he could not say on what morning that was. Counsel: When you were under the influence of liquor, didn’t you sometimes have a row with your wife? —I don’t remember.

His Honor questioned Edwards about the allegations made by his eleven-year-old son who gave evidence the previous evening, and said that his father had threatened him if he gave evidence against him. Edwards said he only told the lad to be careful not to tell a lie on behalf of either his father or mother.

His Honor: Then you* don’t know why he should have made these allegations ?—No. There was rather a painful scene when Annie Sarah Edwards, a fair, good-looking girl in the early twenties was called. As soon as she entered the witness-box she broke down and sobbed bitterly, but afterwards recovered her composure and gave evidence, being accommodated with a chair in the box. She firmly denied having had improper relations with her brother. Up to last April she had been on tntimate and affectionate terms with Mrs Edwards and the children.

By. Mr. Burnard: She had prevented Edwards: from striking his wife when he was intoxicated, and had heard frequent rows between the two. Mr Rees, addressing the jury, commented on the seriousness of the issue involved, for if they found that misconduct had taken place, they would find the respondent had been guilty of incest for which under tho Crimes Act he would be liable to a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with hard labor. He called attention to the sweeping assertions that had been made, and remarked that there was no evidence of misconduct. In fact on only one occasion was it alleged that tho respondent had been improperly familiar in his attitude towards his sister. The petition-, er had tried to make out that a shocking state of things had existed over a period of five years, yet during that time it had been shown that she and her family were frequently on affectionate terms with her husband and sister-in-law. The petitioner's evidence had been discredited by every witness, including herself. Mr. Burnard pointed out that the decision of the jury in this case if adverse to the respondent did not involve the same consequences as in a criminal prosecution. His Honor: The same responsibility rests on the jury. The .petitioner must prove her allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

The Judge, in summing up, remarked that there was no really independent evidence in the case, which made the matter a difficult on to decide. There was a charge of adulterous intercourse, which was a statutory crime in New Zealand, and the jury must have the same amount of certainty as they would require to return a verdict against Edwards and his half-sister in a criminal case before they could find for petitioner. The onus of proof lay on the latter. The case was a very painful one, and the jury had a very onerous task, for which ever way they decided a stigma must rest on one side. If they decided the issue in the negative, however, he would ask them to state their reason, -whether it was for lack of evidence or whether it was because they disbelieved the petitioner. After over an hour’s deliberation the jury found that the petitioner had not produced sufficient evidence to support the charge of adultery, and accordingly answered the issue in the negative on the direction of the Judge.. The petition was accordingly dismissed, without Posts.

DARTON v. BARTON. Lillian Mary Barton petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with George Edward Barton, on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Mr. li. T. Barnard appeared for the petitioner, thtf Suit being undefended. The petitioner, “at present residing at Waipukura, set put in her petition that on December 27, 1899, she was lawfully married to respondent at Mornington, Dunedin. After the, marriage they came to Gisborne,where they lived and cohabited together, with the exception of two short periods, when petitioner visited her people at Pahiatua, until June, 1900, when respondent ordered her out of his bedroom, and refused to allow her to sleep or cohabit with him. She did. not do so for over four months, when, at his request, they cohabited together for a short period until she went to spend Christmas with her parents at Pahiatua, with the consent and approval of the r’espondent. After 1 her re-

turn in February, 1901, she cohabited with him for about three weeks, when he again ordered her from him until June, 1903. She returned, at his request, for a week or a fortnight, when he again ordered her from his room. She had not cohabited with him again. There was no issue of the marriage. Petitioner alleged that in consequence of persistent acts of cruelty, assaults and insults by respondent, she was compelled to leave respondent about November 12, 1901, when she went and lived with her parents at Dunedin until respondent went to Dunedin and asked her to return and live with liim again, which sho did upon his promis ing to treat her properly and leave a certain woman alone, petitioner having for objecting to the familiarity which existed between the said woman qnd the respondent. Petitioner return, od to Gisborne in February, 1902, but soon after respondent again commenced o ill-treat and act cruelly towards her. After she had been assaulted and forcibly ejected from home by the respondent, she was compelled to leave on November 6, 1903, and had not since returned, and was now earning her own living. Petitioner further set Borth that for eighteen months prior to leaving his home in November, 1903, respondent had stopped all her credit fo_i obtaining clothes and personal necessities, and had not provided her with any allowance or means to get the same, in order to get personal necessities for herself, she had been compelled to obtain money by doing needlework. Petitioner added that at divers times and upon various occasions respondent had caused actual bodily injury to her by giving her a black eye on two different occasions, causing bruises on her arms, body and legs, as well as striking her on the face, so causing her face to swell, and on November 25, 1903, upon the information of the petitioner, he was convicted by the Stipendiary Magistrate at Gisborne, and fined for assaulting and ejecting her from his house. Petitioner asserted respondent had deserted her on November 6, 1903, and had left her continuously deserted since.

Counsel stated that the parties were married on December 27th, 1899, and livd together for various periods. Shortly after the marriage a certain amount of cruelty appeared to have been used. In November, 1903, they were living together, when the petitioner was assaulted and turned out of the house. The assault was witnessed by her mother, and a prosecution in the Magistrate’s Court resulted in a conviction being recorded. This was five years ago, and the parties had not lived together since. Nothing, moreover, had been done towards the support of the petitioner. Mrs. Darton, in the box, told tho Court how her husband had kicked her out of bed in the morning because she did not get up at six o’clock and make him a cup of tea. He frequently slapped her face, and on two occasion- gave tier a black eye. He also at one time stopped her getting credit at the shops. Since she took proceedings against respondent in 1903 for assault, she had had no communications from him except two newspapers at election time and a postcard at Christmas time.

By His. Honor: She did not know whether her husband drank, but they had quarrelled because she complained of his familiarity towards another woman. He was decidedly bad tempered. His Honor : How long had you known him when you were married?—Five years. “You ought to have been able to find out what his temper was in that time,” said the Jxidge. Evidence was also given by Mrs. Cross, of Dunedin, the petitioner’s mother. Witness stated that she stayed with her daughter in 1903 \intil the respondent asked her to go away. She pretended to do this, but took a cottage near by, and one evening came back and hid behind the piano. While thus concealed, she heard screams, and saw Darton assault his wife.

The witness had spoken to the respondent about the woman her daughter objected to, and he had replied that sooner than give her up he would give up his home, his wife, and his situation.

His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, with costs against the respondent. Bv turning his wife out, respondent had S ractically deserted her, and it was evient that she could not live with him. For five years he had refused to treat her properly, or to live with her, and had practically deserted her. No doubt the secret of the whole trouble was respondent’s familiarity with and fancy for some other -woman, and he had lost the natural affection which he* should have had for his wife. “It is a very, bad case,” concluded Mr. ' Justice Cooper. CIVIL SITTINGS. ' A WILL CASE. An interesting suit arising out of the will of the late John Alfred Harding came before the Court in the afternoon, when Godfrey Frank Wilson, and his wife Irene, sued Frederick Hall and Oswald .Sheet, executors and trustees of the will mentioned, for specific: performance of agreement, or £1.200 damages. Mr. L. T. Barnard appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. J. W. Nolan for the defendants. John Alfred Harding died in May, L 907, and the claim set forth that in or . : / . r'. l . A i i ' i 1

about October, two years previously, ho agreed with tho plaintiffs verbally and at interviews that if the latter married . within twelve months or thereabouts he would give Mrs. Wilson, who was his oldest daughter, a house. Before tho marriage John Harding set apart a piece of land and let a contract for the construction of a house thereon, frequently consulting the plaintiffs as to the style of the place, etc. On October 16th, 1906, the plaintiffs were married, and on returning from their honeymoon John Alfred Harding gave thorn full possession of the house and land. They retained unquestioned possession till the death of John Harding, and had continued in possession since. John Harding, however, died without executing a transfer of the Serty, and though the plaintiffs had ied to the executors to do so, tho latter had refused. The plaintiffs accordingly asked that the Court should order the defendants to specifically perform the agreement, and execute to the plaintiff Irene Wilson a sufficient transfer of the property, or to pay Cl2oo damages. Mr. Barnard, opening his case said that the late Mr. Harding was an i: ,v telIceeper, who left about £20,000. Co sol went on to detail the eircumstaiuM s that led to the present claim, particulars of which were set out.

Godfrey Frank Wilson, clerk, in tho employ of the Union Steamship Company,' gave evidence. Fie said that when hb asked for tho hand of Miss Harding he was earning about £l3O a year. His father, however, had promised him £IOO if he married in a year, and £250, with a possibility o-f £3OO, if ho.»raarried in two. But Mr. Harding objeoted to long engagements, and subsequently promised that, having given his consent to the marriage, he would givo the couple a house if they married within a' year. It was not until last February that tho witness was told definitely by Mr. Skeet that tho executors would not complete tho transfer of the property. It was in reliance of Mr. Harding’s promise being fulfilled that the plaintiffs got married. By Mr. Nolan : Mr. Harding did not say he would give the house to his daughter for as long as sho remained in Gisborne.. Mr. Harding had paid the insurance, and after his death the trustees. The case stands adjourned till to-day.