SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XI, Issue 1352, 8 March 1867, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Thursday, March 7. [Before bis Honor Mr. Justice Gresson an d a Common Jury.] KLAU3 V. &BABAU.

Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the plaintiff* and Dr. Foster, instructed by Mr Slater, for the defendantMr Wynn Williams stated the case for the plaintiff. It was one brought to recover damages for an alleged act of adultery with the plaintiff's wife, Wilhemina Klaus. The damages were only asked so as to allow the plaintiff to obtain an act of divorcement from the General Assembly. The only evidence ihat could possibly be brought forward would be, that in the absence of the marriage certificate the marriage could not be proved. The certificate was in the hands of the woman, and she was not likely to produce it.

The following were the issues : — Ist. Is the defendant guilty of the trespasses in the declaration mentioned, or any of

them. 2nd. Wae Wilheniina Klaus in the plaintiff's declaration mentioned at the time in the said deelarfltion in that behalf mentioned or any of tE&m the wife of the plaintiff. 3rd. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant in respect of the eaid trespasses. The first witness called was Henry Muller, who deposed —I live at Pigeon bay, and am a laborer. I know Mr and Mrs Klaus. I knew them in London before I came to New Zealand. I was working there with Klaus I saw him with the woman Wilhemina together in London. I saw them coming from a church together. I was in the street at the time. I spent the wedding day with them. I supposed it to be their wedding day. I cannot recollect the day ; it was about fire years ago. I have known the parties ever since. I knew the wive of Klaus before she was married. I did not know her surname. She went by a different name than Klaus. She was always called Klaus afterwards. I know the defendant, Grabau, and have worked for him about two and a-half years ago. I have lived in the house with Klaue, Grabau and his wife. 1 cannot say that I ever heard Klaus address her by the name of Mrs. Klaus. I have never heard Grabau address her ac Mrs Klaus. [ always addressed her as Mrs Klaus, and Klaus never objected to her being so called. By Dr Foster —It was a good five years since I met the parties coming from church. It was in Leman street, Wbitechapel. I have been in a church in England. The church I saw Klaus and Wilhemina coming out of was a German church. Ido not know the form of service used in the church. The plaintiff since his arrival in Canterbury has been living with. Wilhemina on the Lincoln road, about twelve miles from town. There was only one room in the house ; there were three beds in the room. I slept in one of them. Wilhemina slept in a bed by herself in the same room. I never saw the plaintiff and Wilhemina in bed together.

By Mr Wynn Williams —I slept in one of the beds in the room with Klaue.

Claus Burmeister deposed—l am a dealer, living in Christchurch. I know Klaus, the plaintiff in this action. I knew him in London, and worked with him. I knew Wilhemina Westball. I saw them go to church, and accompanied them to the door. I was in the church the Sunday before, and heard the banns published. He said that William Klaus and Wilhemina Westball were going to get married. I was at the church door when they went in to be married. I remained outside until they came out. I went to their house by invitation in the evening. I saw Mrs Klaus the night afterwards,, and she showed mc the certificate of marriage. I have known Klaus since, and Wilhemina has since gone by the name of Mrs Klaus. I know the Wellington hotel. I have seen the plaintiff and his wife there. I know the defendant, Grabau, and have spoken to him about a sule of land from Klaus to him. Grabau said that he wanted to buy the land, and that Klaus and his wife were going to America. I mean by his wife the woman Wilhemina. I know that Klaus and Wilhemina started for America together

Elizabeth Fuchs deposed—l am the wife of Joseph Fuch, who keeps the Wellington hotel. I know the plaintiff Klaus ; he stayed at our house. Mrs Klaus stayed with him; the plaintiff always called her Mrs Klaus. They lived together as man and wife. They left our house, and went to Lyttelton. Mrs Klaus returned by herself; she stayed for two days and two nights, and on the third day Mr Grabau came down and fetched her away. It must have been in the month of November last. Q-rabau took her away with all her boxes. I saw Klaus about a fortnight afterwards. His wife afterwards came to the house to him, and they etayed together. After Klaus and his wife had gone to bed Grabnu came to the house, and asked where Mrs Klaus was. I told him that Mr and Mrs Klaus had gone to bed. Grabau said, " I thought so." He said that he had a great mind to go up stairs and knock the old eye out. I told him not to forget that Klaus and his wife were married. Grabau said " Why does he not keep her." I told him the number of the room in which they slept. He went up stairs, and I heard a great noise there. Ho came down greatly excited, and afterwards Mrs Kluus came down, and came into the bar after Grabau. She had some words with Grabau ; they used low German language which I did not understand. Grabau went and got a horse and cart ready, and Mrs Klaus went and dressed herself and went away in the cart with him. I advised her not to go. I always knew them as Mr and Mrs Klaus. In about a week Grabau and Mrs Klaus came back together.

By Dr. Foster —At the time Garbau came, Mr and Mrs Klaus were sleeping together. Mrs Klaus came down into the bar; Klauß came only a part of the way. Carl Snell, deposed—l am a laborer, and hare been a servant to Mr Grabau, the defendant. I know Klaus, the plaintiff, and Mrs Klaus. I have seen Mrs Klaus at Grabau's house. I last e*w her there about a week ago. Mrs Klaus was there also about Christmas last. She was living in the house with Grabau when I left on Saturday last. She has been staying with Grabau for eeveral

weeks,

By Dr. Foster—Mr and Mrs Klaus and Mr Grabau lived together for about eleven months. There was only one room in the

house,

By Mr Wynn Williams—During the last five or six weeks Klaus was not living in the house. At the time Klaus lived there it was before Grabau had bought it. I cannot say whether Mrs Klaus was at Grabau's house on Christmas Day.

Christian Ditford deposed.—l am a baker, residing in Christchurch. I know the defendant Grabau, and have spoken to him about Mrs Klaus. In the beginning of last December I was at the Wellington hotel. All at once a row was cominenred between Grabau and Klaus. They got quiet after a few minutes, and I and two or three more told Grabau that he ought to be ashamed of himself for taking away another man's wife. He said that he did not want Klau's wife, that she had come after him. Mrs Klaus was in the house, and After some chaffing Grabau took her away. Some one present asked Grabau how long he would keep her, and he replied, " As long as I think proper." The defendant afterwards came to the Wellington, and spoke of this

action. I eaid that I believed all Klaus wanted was " a gold watch and chain nnd hia wife." He said that be could have both. On the first oe.rat.ion that Grabau took Mrs Klaus away was in the beginning of December. C'laus Burmoistor, recalled —I saw Klaus and Wilhemir.a at tho Wellington hotel about three weeks before Christmas. Grabau was there also. Wilhemina is the same person I knew at homo as Wilhemina West ball.

This was the plaint ill's c\so. Dγ Foster, for tho defendant, contended that the marriage had not been proved, and that therefore he was entitled to a nonsuit.

His Honor overruled tho objection

Dr Foster then contended that the damages, if any, must be very small. There was a little evidence proving a marriage, but still before a verdict could be given for the plaintiff it must be substantially proved. Dr Foster then reviewed the evidence very carefully, and urged that the offence, if committed at all, had been committed since the charge had been made, and that it was with the perfect cognizanco of Klaue, the reputed husband. Mr Wynn Williams contended that the adultery had been fully proved, and that it was not necessary according to law to strictly prove the inurrhige. He had no doubt but that the evidence he had brought forward would be sufficient to prove to the jury that Klaus was married to his wife, Wilhemina, and that his client was entitled to a verdict.

His Honor reviewed the points of law which had arisen during the case very carefully, summing up at considerable length. The jury then retired, and after an absence of about half-au-hour returned into Court with a verdict for the plaintiff on all the counts. Damages, £40. Tho Court was then adjourned sine die.