MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11565, 23 April 1903, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

ALLEGED WIFE DESERTION,

At the Magistrate's Court yesterdsy. before Mr K. Bertha m, S M., the cat* iv which 'Edvth Roptr eacii Allan Edjar Roper for alleged di-sertion and ref'jfil to maintain hor "was continued.

Mr Donneilly, for t!i<> consphinnnt-, called Carl Cox, eon of Mrs Roper, ""'ho for thirteen months served as a t-roopor ia Soui'h Africa. During that time, and tinco his rel-urn, he had allowed his mothor £5 p-f-r m#nth. Plis mother was now destitute of nvans.

Defendant, railed by Mr Donnelly, said be> went to Central Ouigo to try and obtain work on being notified that, divorce proceilings h:ul been withdrawn. When iv Omto previously ho ha<l crone to Duik-din t-o receive a citation, and h;i«l brfii ir.ippod and envsted. Ha had co intention of leaving the colony when he. wont South, but of obtaining woik. He , htlicwd tiil yesterday that the child (Docima) was hi;-, although he had a suspicion o:i the matter. His father had been good enough to keep him while divorc-d proceedii;?.s were, pending, but hiis father now told ihini he would liAve no more to do with him, ajid that no would hare to work for hie living. He went to ptoyn because as a. member of tho theatrical pro-fc-ssion he> wn.s eutjtled 1o do Ki>. He fre(]ue.i:?«l billiard rooms very little, and very seldom went to races. He had not been travelling for his father, but eiinply filling in. his tinia by inossagecarry.ing. Mr Stringer said he vrsus not going to attempt anj* defence of the defendant. The cii"cun!Ata.ncfe were peculiar, and t"ie whole tiling, as far .isthn marriai;o was conceraod.

a mistake. Mat.Usra had bet-n brought out which, had not helped his Worship in deciding >tiho wise. Mis Roper lvi.d hefn perfectly justified in Tvithdra.wing from enbabilation, and it merely became, n question of means ou the. part of the defendant. It wa.s quite recognised that ni>me (lilow.mco muM be made to the complainant, having rejjard to her own means and to t»hn defendant's means. On the latier point too much reliance on compLainant's credibility could not be placed. She had undoubtedly committed perjury with regard to the child. This had nothing to do with the present matter, but ought to 1» considered in taking her evidence as a whole.

In reply to ihis Worship, ■defendant said ho. 'had not ! been brought up to office work. When he -weEd io Australia ho had taken to the stage. The most work he had done had been hard work with the pick and ehovel in Otago on the goldfields, where ho went when he left sohooJ. Hβ had also worked at fleece-picking in a woobhed. His Worship Siiid the case was a very

painful o:ic. A great deal had br<-n said which had no bearing on the matter before the Court. This youiig man (tlu> defendiuit) had married: a wife and hod behaved in a most /ihameful manner towards her, and from the evidence it appsared that she had been to some extent keeping him. No attempt luid been made to traveree her evidence that she had no nwvuis and hod suf-fo-red ill-bealth. Tlie conduct of the wifo> ne<?dod some explanation with regard to her istatenu-nts alwat the child if he had had to deal with that, but an Mr Stringer had pointed out, ho had not co to do. the defendant had apparently been brought up to do nothing, and haU no means, and the sooner h? went to work the better. He was strong and able to work, and had said he had work to go to at 15s a week and his keep. The Court made further strong comments on tile case and on the conduct of the defendant, and ordered that defendant pay 15k par wock maintenance, and find a bond for £100 to pay the same.