RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
ASHBURTON. — Yesterday.
(Before Mr J. N. Wood, R.M.) WILKIE V. WILKIE. This was an application for an order to protect informant’s earnings and goods, and also the custody of three children, under the Married Women’s Property Protection Act, on the ground of defendant’s habitual drunkenness. Mr O’Reilly appeared for informant, and defendant conducted his own case. Isabella Wilkie deposed that she was wife of defendant, and that she lived by her own earnings. Her husband was an habitual drunkard, and about a fortnight ago he came in about 12 or 1 o’clock in the morning, and fell over the scraper. He was drunk, and kept them up all night. He went away at 4 o’clock. Next night her husband again came home drunk, and tried to take a horse away, which belonged to another person. He again came down on Saturday week, and was then sober. Witness sent for the police to take him away. The police came, but did not take him. He stayed that night. Was away during Sunday, but slept at the house on Sunday night, and went away in the morning. Defendant had not been home since. He had been out gambling all night frequently. Defendant here asked some questions as to certain monies and property taken by defendant some seven months ago, but the Magistrate ruled that the evidence must be confined to the past six weeks. By the Bench: Defendant had not struck her during the last six weeks. Had received Ll 6 from him during that time. By defendant : Will swear you were drunk on two occasions. Was not in the habit of putting the door-scraper on the step to trip you up. My earnings have been by money from my friends. I have many friends you know nothing about. The property was settled on me previous to the first protection order. Ido not consider the way I lived whilst you were at Malvern extravagant. The defendant asked if a protection order could be granted without the husband being notified of it, as it was done some four months ago. The Magistrate replied that it could if the husband was known to be absent from the district. Defendant then made some statements, which mainly had reference to previous transactions, but was stopped by his Worship. He then called the following evidence; — James Quigley, contractor, stated that he had known the parties for about seven years. Mr O’Reilly’objected to any’ evidence but for the past six weeks. Examination continued : Had seen defendant nearly every day for six weeks. Had never seen him drunk. Knew him to be a hard working man, and kind to his family. His wife had, to his knowledge, always plenty of money from him. She took two of his horses from witness’ place last week. Timothy Keily, contractor, deposed : Have lived with defendant for the past seven months, nearly constantly, and during the past six weeks have been living with him—in the same house most of the time. Have never seen him drunk, during that time or any other. Have often had a drink with him, and been in his company till late at night, and never saw him the worse for liquor. James Wallace, publican, Chertsey, said ; Defendant had lived at his hotel, at Chertsey during the pasttwo months, offand on, about three weeks in all. The previous witness and he worked together. Looked upon him as a very proper sober man. Had known him for six years, and had never seen him drunk. By Mr O’Reilly : Look upon the two of them as very bad customers 10 the hotel. Constable Smart, deposed : Mrs Wilkie sent for the police on Saturday week, and told witness defendant was in the house. Saw defendant and left him there. Have never seen him the worse for drink. By Mr O’Reilly: Have seen him out late at night, but never drunk, or so as to require carrying home. Defendant : I have often seen you carried home drunk, O’Reilly. Defendant, sworn, stated that his wife’s evidence was a tissue of falsehoods. By her violence, ungovernable temper, and filthy language, she had frequently driven him from home, and his forgiveness had only led to worse conduct on her part. She had ruined him by her extravagence and dishonesty, and now attempted to blast his character by her falsehoods. On the night alluded to as the one on which he had come home drunk, both his wife and another woman, a lodger, had used such aggravating language that he for once lost his temper, and told them plainly what he thought of them. He could not obtain possession of his clothes, books, tools, or anything from her. The loss he felt most regret for, was his college prizes, which inform ant had refused to give up. She had stolen his watch and chain during the past six weeks. He denied assertion of the informant as to gambling, except on one occasion about two or three year years ago. The Magistrate said the case was one which should never have came into Court, and he would refuse to grant the order. Case dismissed.
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 406, 27 July 1881
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 406, 27 July 1881
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.