SUPBEME COTJBT.

Press, Volume XXIX, Issue 3895, 16 January 1878, Page 3

SUPBEME COTJBT.

SITTINGS TINDER DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT.

Tuesday, Januaby 15. [Before hie Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court eat at 10 aan. in its divoroe and matrimonial jurisdiction. TODD V. TODD. Thie -was a petition by Mary Todd, of Winchester, in the County of Geraldine, praying for a judicial separation from her husband, William Todd, on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The case now come before the Court for trial of the facto before a jury. Mr George Harper appeared for the petitioner. The respondent waa unrepresented by counsel, and did not appear. The following questions were submitted to the jury for their verdict: — 1. Whether Mary Todd the petitioner was on the 23rd day of December 1874 married to W. Todd the respondent ? 2. Whether Mary Todd the petitioner lived and cohabited with the respondent at Winchester in the County of Geraldine and have the petitioner and respondent had any issue ? 3. Whether on the 23rd December 1876 and on other days between that day and the Ist September 1877 William Todd the respondent has been guilty of great eroelty to Mary Todd thepetitioner ? 4. Whether William Todd the respondent has deserted Mary Todd the petitioner without any cause ? i Mr Harper intimated that the petition contained an allegation as to desertion, which it could not legally sustain, so that thie part of the petition could not be sustained. The petition alleged desertion, but it could not sustain it according to the Act, which stated that desertion to be legally pleaded must be for over two years. The allegation of cruelty would, however, be sustained by the evidence which he should lead. The cn*e was that on the 23rd December, 1874, the petitioner was married to the respondent, at Temuka, and that at times during the three years following the petitioner experienced "syetematio cruelty at the hands of the respondent, and in September, 1877, the respondent finally deserted the petitioner. He should abandon the ieaue raised for desertion, as stated by him, on the ground that the desertion did not come within the scope of the Act. The learned counsel then quoted from "Brown on Divorce" to show what constituted cruelty. Mr Harpsr called the following evidence:— William Lee—l am a Wesleyan Minister, and on the official list of officiating mii.Ltters. [Certificate put in of marriage of parties to suit.] I married the petitioner and respondent at Temuka in 1874. I recognise the person now in Court as Mary Wilson, now Mary Todd, who wae married by mc in December, 1874, to William Todd. Mary Todd—l am the petitioner in this cite and the wife of the respondent. I was married by Rev. Mr Lee on 23rd "December, 1874, Since my marriage, I have Kred between Trmuka and Winchester. I have i had no children by the marriage. My busband is a farmer, and we lived together in a house of our own. My husband wae alwaje veiy severe to mc, and could Eot get enough of work out of mc, even when I was unable do it. Besides housework, I had to

shepherd sheep, milk cows, and go into the harvest field when required. My husband fanned 100 acres, 50 of which were his own and 50 leased. About three months after we were married my husband began to ill-use mc, by being cruel and using harsh words to mc. Once he need the stockwhip to mc, when I could not milk a young cow, and cut mc in the eye. The cow was quite wild and had never been handled before, and I was unable to tie her up myself. He often kicked mc with his boots. About two years ago he kicked mc about the body for not getting up at 3 a.m. I was very tired with harvest work and scarcely able to stand. My husband wore large strong boota, and kicked mc several times about the legs and body. I told him at the time he had hurt mc. He then said he would give mc more. I then went to run away, and he kicked mc again inside the gate. The respondent had three children by a former marriage. I attended to them as well as possible, as I was scarcely. ever in the house. One day I asked his little girl, about eleven years of ■ age, to fill some potatoes into a bncket for mc. He said *'no," and I said " Why shouldn't she ?" He then raised hie fist, struck mc in the eye, and knocked mc down. One morning in spring tune I was very ill, having had no sleep, all ! sight. Respondent came to mc abont 6 o'clock, j and having got up and lit the fire, he got hold of mc by the hair of the head, dragged mc out of bed to the fire and burnt all the hair off one aide of my head. My face was not burnt, as he took off his coat -when he saw my hair burning and put it round my head. He has often struck mc since these acts of violence. He deserted mc abont seven months ego, and had struck mc several times between burning my hair and deserting mc. Respondent was in gaol, for six months for beating his child. When he deserted mc he ■old off hie place and said he did not want to have anything more to do with 'mc. He told ttock, farm, and everything. Ido not know -whether he took the children with him, but I heard that he put the children into the Reformatory. I have been earning my own living at washing and service since September, 1877. I have never received any money from respondent. My husband has turned mc out of the honse many times, and I have often stopped out till the morning in the stable and elsewhere on the farm. We had no neighbors nearer than a quarter of a mile. 1 have no relations in the colony. I had been out only about seven or eight months when I married. My husband wanted mc to go to a doctor when he saw the state of my face after hitting mc with the stockwhip, but I did net. He was a man of very violent paesions. My husband took mc to Amberley and left mc there without money, or boots on my feet. He left mc entirely destitute, and I had to take in washing to support myself. I am now acting as housekeeper for a gentleman and his family at the Point. Mr Young, the hotelkeeper at Winchester, laid the information against respondent for beating his child. The child was adopted afterwards by a lady and gentleman in Tamaru. By his Honor: We were always quarrelling. I do not lose my temper, and did not give him any occasion to quarrel with mc. It was always work which we quarrelled over. He could not get enough out of mc. I was unable to do what he wanted mc, and then we would quarrel. He never found fault with mc for anything else. I never saw him treat his children kindly, nor did he pay much attenton to them. He never blamed mc for not looking after the children properly, nor had we any quarrel about them except the one I have related. His first wife had not been dead more than six months when we were married. I was in service with Mr Meyers, farmer, Temuka, before we were married. Ellen Connelly—l reside in Winchester, and am wife of Thomas Connelly, farmer. I know the petitioner and her husband. I have known 'the latter for about eleven years. I have been at Todd'e house since their marriage. I saw petitioner with a swollen face, and she told mc her husband had struck her. George Cliff—l am a farmer at Temuka. I know petitioner and respondent, and have done so since their marriage. My house is about a quarter of a mile from that occupied by Mr Todd. I have seen Mrs Todd with her face tied up, and it was surmised that he had been beating her. This was about fifteen or sixteen months ago. By his Honor—Mr Todd never made any complaint to mc. I never saw any acts of violence. Todd was a very passionate man. This closed the case for the petitioner, Mr Harper stating that this was all the evidence they could procure. A jurymatr inquired if notice had been given to the respondent of this trial. His Honor said that the jury must assume that all things had been done to bring the respondent within the Court before the case could have been put before a jury. Mr Harper said that the affidavit on the citation proved that the respondent had been served personally with a notice of trial at W«-lKneton. His Honor having briefly summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the petitioner on all the questions submitted, finding on the one for desertion that the respondent deserted the petitioner from September, 1877. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, when the case of Henry v Henry, for judicial separation, will be taken.