THE WELLINGTON ELOPEMENT CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 204, 1 September 1887, Page 5

THE WELLINGTON ELOPEMENT CASE.

(by telegraph—own correspondent.)

Wellington,-this day.

The Newtown elopement case, in which Godfrey H. Sheppard, a person whose appearance was. certainly not that of tho ideal popular hero of romance, was charged with the larceny of a quantity of cash and goods, valued in' all at £11 2s, came before Mr Wardell, R.M., yesterday. George Wyatt, the prosecutor, deposed that ho resided in King-street. One day last week, when he returned home from work, ho found that his wife was gone, and so also was the accused, who lodged in the house, and a .quantity of goods. On the mantelpiece be found a note written by the accused stating that after the dreadful, occurrence of the previous night he (Wyatt) would not be surprised that he had left for the North a week earlier than he had intended. The writer reproached the husband for " gross cruelty" to his "devoted wife,"stating that she had started for, Home via Australia, whore some friends would see her safely off In conclusion, Sheppard asked that any letters that might arrive for him should be re-directed to an address in Taranaki. Witness found that all the food in the house was gone-with the exception of a small part of a sandwich and some stale beef. Witness identified the goode produced as having been in his house. He missed £2 10s out of his waistcoat pocket. For several days he was unable to gain any ridings of his "friend'Sheppard," or his " loving and dutiful wife," but at midnight on Friday, the large box, which seemed to have been a bugbear to them, was sent back empty and left at his door. On Saturday he ascertained that " the pair" were at Tinakori Road, and obtaining a search warrant he proceeded with Detective Chrystal to the house which they occupied, and there found the goods produced, which were brought with accused to the police station.

For the defence Mr Skerrett submitted that there-was no case, as it had not been proved that accused took the prosecutor's goods with a knowledge that they belonged to him. If the maitterwere gone into he would prove that Mrs Wyatt was quite justified by law and' in morals in quitting her husband's household. It was true that she might have left otherwise than in Sheppard's company, but foolish acts of this character were often brought about not so much by tne conduct of the third person as that of the husband.

The prosecutor said his wife had a private banking account unknown to him, and had saved money from his wages,with which she had now paid for furnishing her house. • .

His Worship' said that in the present state of the law there was nothing to prevent a woman, if she had private means, from furnishing another man's house. The story was a very sad one to be told in this way. He did hOt think he ought to deal with the case as a criminal charge.

After some argument as to the responsibility incurred by one who runs away with another man's wife, His Worship said it was necessary that he should so deal with the case that it would be a warning to other people that the step was one of great danger. Harriet i Wyatt was placed in the box, and swore to ill treatment on the part of her husband, stating that on the night before she left her home he threatened to murder her, broke into her bedroom after she had locked it.hnd ill treated her again after she went downstairs. Next morning she found herself all bruised, and as Wyatt use? brutal lapguage towards her she determined to leave him. She told Sheppard that she would go away before, her husband came home, as he would' beat her, and asked Sheppard whether he would go with her. He replied, '.'l'll go and take you away from the brute. I'm disgusted with the brute." She sent; him to engage rooms for her, and while- he was absent "she packed up the goods, believing- at the time that she was entitled to all the things she took. His Worship put a question to prosecutor whether having probably other proceedings in view, he still desired to press the 'case, which, however, resolved itself into that of taking a couple of knives and forks and rings. Wyatt said he would leave the matter in the hands of tho Court.

, His Worship dismissed the charge of larceny, but said he felt bound to remark that prior to the night before the tight there must have been some conduct on the part of the wife to justify the return which Wyatt had made. Wyatt asked for an order giving him possession of the goods that were in Court. His Worship declined to make any order,: as he had already decided that they nearly all belonged to the womau.