SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 278, 21 November 1913, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

THE CRIMINAL SITTINGS. A WHAXGARF-! CASE. __ The i-ittings of the Auckland Supreme Court were continued yesterday after- ! noon and this morning before his Honor -Mr Justice Kdivards. ' Daniel Healpy alias Thomas Kane denied a charge of having committed burglary at Mr.Malion's Hotel. U'hangarei, on September 4th. The Hon. .1. A. Tole, Kα - .. prosecuted and Mr J. R. Lundon defended the prisuner. For the prosecution it was alleged that about i-l was taken from the room of a hoarder at the hotel in the early hours of thp date mentioned ir. the charge. Ilealev was a bufdiman and had been on a "burst." A night watchman paid ho kuiv Healey roiw out of a right-of-way alongside thp hotel, look up and down the street, and ■' i-i' make off. It was alleged that before burglary Ilea ley h.ul borrowed money, ';. niter the event he v> as found in pos--!•--ior. of several pound*. i The nfviise.l .!■■! nor. B ive evidence, hut in a statement fr-ni ihc i!ork. lip Bniil lie | could n..t pt:k:. : «t what had happened iift<T tl.,- cvpiiiiiu before the hursdary. He liß'l lii-'-n drinking freely. Mr I.undnn iirsf.r that it was impossible for the irijiht ■■ itc'inian to -nerik confidently as J to ii|<-nt;>'>iiiß ITe.'tloy with the man «i»en i-onnr.g ot't of the right-of-way. The i-.-.ry relumed a verdict of "Not piilty.' , and Henley was discharged. AN INFATUATION. LEADS TO A DOWNFALL. Frank Stewart w.< = charged with hsv 'in.- ohtainml f 1 "i and '-'■' '™ A >. an.ly by f.il-p pretcm-p--.. on June sth ml iVn.and nl'o with having obt.vnfil 11.1 fr.-iin U. M. Hmoties by fal*e pre-ton.-ra on .Jam.- iMi. Abused plead.-v jriiiiiy. ; Dr! H. Dean BajuforJ said Stewart wa= ' nnlv 24 )i>;ir< of age, mirripci, and had Itvo r'.ilMren. NotMna was previously known agate-t t!ie .'■■.--"I. He had been tniployed with various moving picture i firms, it appeared that towards the lend of May h t > hecarae short of money. On Juiip st!i and Oth ho hadn't any I money in the bank, but i«ued two I cheqdes. Thp only possible explanation that could be urged was that he was I well known to both :iie payee and Mr. I Peterson (the manager of the picture I .-howl, and lie appeared t.i have thought i that the chprjue= could have =toed for ! ,i time, and that he con! 1 repay the amount. Then on the ISth of Juiip accused borrowed samp money from Mr. Brookes. In this connection counsel J pointed out that the security, a picture ! miu'hiiip. really was the property o! j pri-ioner. so that Mr. Brookes, would not i :uvp .suffered any lu;s. Counsel went ; on to explain that Stewart had an I infatuation {or a young girl, and cleared lout to Australia" nith her. He was arrested in Sydney, and brought back to ! Auckland ..71 :i char,!."- of wife desertion. 1 When he came back the wife abandoned 1 proceedings, and thf»y -.ver>' now living 1 together amicably. The whole money liaJ been rppaid. L'ounstii asked the Court to I p*ive prisoner a change to redeem himself. 'J'iie offences weir committed within a very short space or time, and while 1 thp ;>risoner was infatuated with the' I young .2-ir] lie ran away with to I 1 Sydney. " His' Ilon-r s.iid it was ~],.: , ,-Iy not a j .■a=e fov probation. There were sv-verul! offpncea and e\ iilence of deliberate intenj tion. In order that inquiries niijiit |»i' I made of the probation officer, accused was ordered tv stand down until Monday morning for sentence. j DIVOB.CE. CRfELTY A XT) MISCONDUCT. Two undefended divorce cases were i 1 hcnnl Iv liis Honor Mr. Justice Cooper at the Supreme Court this morning. MiscondiKi was the ground on which i Mrs. Kmma Ma nil Paunders (Mr. A. K. S!\Pltoiii afplifil for a divorce from I Daniel (it-urge Sauiulers. The complain- [ anl FtaiPil in e-jd.-nce that the marriage took place in 11)03. at Auckland, and there v. ere three children. After a couple of months he started to ill-treat her. and s|,,. had to complain oi liis. soiiisr out to theatres and dances with other n-omi-n. They lived in several different placp-, and the ill-treatment at lensrth so bad that the had to leave imiiie. The respondent promised to j reform. anJ induced her to go back to him. but tilings got steadily worse. He took to beating the children, and she ' w:is forced to call in a doctor in con-eequenc-e "f a severe assault on Jiersclf. She left him in K'lo. and had since i>een keeping- lierwlf and the children by her own efforts at Pongakawa, Bay of Plenty. She had obtained a maintenance order against him. but in two ] and a-half vmr- he had nnly paid up .1-11. In J:ii!p las- s hp hearil that respondent wa< living at Auckland with another lonian Herbert M. Mrooks. an inquiry a3ent. sai'! tha: on .Tune 'J'ith last he visited a house in Newton, and there saw a man who admitted that he was respondent, and thai he had been living there since Mny with a woman whom witness also saw in the house. He signed a statement (produced) to that effect. \Yi;nc-ri subsequently served him with tlie citation in the present proceedings. ][is Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, end gave the p..:itioner the custody of the children for thai period. A "WKI.T.V.JSItIXir WANDERER." 11.-i , -v Mints IJII <;. jr. Xewioni opI v ■ > li ■ riivrc- from liis wife. Annie 1 ■ ; Mines, on the ground of deser- . inr-r stated that ]ie married 1 M.'i'iit at Feihlinsr in and li.. 1 : ...I :o._-.:her there till ISOS. Sub?i'.|ite!ill\ ili'py lived -.it New Plpnouth, .Hiiiitly, "Wairara. Di-votiport, and Warknorlh. \\!:-ile they were at New I'lylnuiith respondent left him and went to Auckland, ai: ! on his meeting here there s.in-.e timii alti-r. -hi- agreed to return to him. 11-v remained together at VVarkwurtii for fome months in 11)03, but eventually she went away asrain, saving that she was hoi Mili-.ticd. and was to Auckland. She took about JE 10 with her. nl=o a sad.lie and -bridle. He saw her some month? later in Queen Street. and she told him she was working in a book shop in Newton. He her Bsrain to co.no back, but she refused. A l'.ttle 1-ater he saw her again, and she then told him thai she was going away to Sydney with another man. He urp-ed her onep more to rei'irn to him, but shr , :'.<y rcpU.-d. ■ Tin p-U - suvay. and you ' ,•.-. jjt-t 1 clivon-i- if y<l.l like'"' lie had niip r'urtlii-r int-rview '.\:t!i her, and then 1-—'vim! a letter t produced I the day 0 tt>T she -vv.is t,, have left. His Honor, after perusing thu docuraent, remarked, "I sco it is signed, 'Your

well-wishing wanderer, Annie,' and there are ten crosses, which I presume represent kisses.'' The petitioner added that he had not seen hi- wife since, but his sister had (seen her in Sydney in 1909. 'William Hurst .Martin, jun.. said that he knew the parties while they were living at Warkworth. They then appeared to be on very friendly terms, and the .petitioner appeared to treat hii; wife well. He met the respondent in Auckland after she had left her home. She told him that she did not intend lo go back, as she was no: satisfied with Warkworth, and wae having a better time in Auckland. Later on he saw her out driving with a strange man. His Honor recalled the petitioner, and remarked on the long period (ten years) thit he had allowed to elapse between respondent's departure and the present proceedings. "What was your object in applying for a divorce?" he added. "I was thinking -of getting married again," candidly replied the petitioner. His Honor remarked that Mr. Justice Sim had refused decreets in some cases where many years had been allowed to elapse. In the present case the late, t evidence before him was lira; the respondent had last been seen ten years ■'Co. The statement that she had been seen in Sydney was not before him as evidence. An order had been made for substituted service, and advertisements inserted in the Sydney papers, apparently without result. There was theretore no evidence that tbe respondent was -:I!I alive. He proceeded to read some cx-tract6 from ; lie letter produced, in which the respondent stated what route she was taking, and sii.l she hivped the 'r\p would do her good, also that she httd bought clothes for the child. Such a letter, he remarked, was hardly that of a wife who was running off with another man. Mr. New:on: Well, the fact remains that she did leave him. Hi- Honor said ho did no. condemn divorce, but he must have more evidence. He would adjourn the case to enable ihe petitioner's s-istcr to be called.