EAST AND WEST

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 155, 27 March 1922, Page 6

EAST AND WEST

CHILD OF MIXED MARRIAGE r DISPUTE ABOUT CUSTODY IMPORTANT LEGAL POINT INVOLVED The dispute between Abraham Wally Mahomed Salaman, a Hindu dyer and herbalist (formerly of Wellington, and now' resident in Auckland), and his European wife, Marjorie Salaman, as to the custody of the child of the marriage, was again brought before. His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking at the Supreme Sourt on Saturday morning. Some little time ago, Salaman, for whom Mr. W. E. Leicester appeared, took action under the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act to obtain custody of the child (a little girl), but owing to pressure of Court business, argument was not then concluded. Mr. Jellitee, counsel for the respondent, on Saturday morning was called up to show why petitioner’s application should not be acceded to. Mr. E. G. Jellicoe, who appeared for the respondent, Marjorie Salaman, recalled' that petitioner had, in October last, obtained a decree. nisi for the dissolution of the marriage, on the ground that his wife had teen guilty of adultery with one Wilfred Chandler. Petitioner and! respondent had never lived together since 1917, but as the child was then only five months old, he allowed her to stay with the respondent. He had, he claimed,' maintained his wife, and had provided her with a house, but towards the end of--1920 respondent left the house, taking the child with'her. He had hot contributed towards her maintenance since that time. He alleged that his wife and child were living in a house occupied by Chinamen, who had not allowed 'him to see the child when he, had visited the house on December 4. Petitioner claimed that he was -well able to provide a home where the child could be brought up properly. He considered that the child had now reached an age when she should placed in such surroundings as would be to her best interest since she was now old enough to be influenced by her environment.

Opposing the motion, Mr. Jellicoe maintained that the ■ petitioner had withheld important facts and'had not stated the' facto correctly. Mr. . Jellicoe contended that the father was a complete stranger to die ■ child and had never shown any affection for it. Salaman had altogether failed to fulfil his parental obligations. Were custody given to the petitioner the child, contended counsel, would become the slave of 'some Asiatic woman, and ha»ve, to submit to Asiatic food and customs. ' His Honour , remarked that at one time the word' Asiatic was used as a term of opprobrium, but he did not know that it. was so to-day. Proceeding, Mr. Jellicoe said that Salaman even now had not made arrangements for the child, and ever since the birth of the child he had by implication abdicated his - right to its custody in favour of the mother. Mr. Leicester, in support of the motion, Said the case was a very painful one. The desire by each side to obtain custody had called up all the past differences between the parties. From the evidence against the petitioner; it might be thought,! that he was a brute, but appearance and demeanour dispelled this idea. Counsel contended that His Honour could gauge the character of thp respondent by the fact that she had come under the influence of a man of dark colour. She' had used her influence to induce her parents to hurry on her marriage with Salaman. They evidently looked upon him as on the high road to fortune. Mrs. Salaman’s father had six daughters, and was naturally glad of the chance to get one of them well married. The fact that Salaman had gone to Auckland practically a penniless man and had Worked- himself up to a position of prosperity was proof that he was a man of ability and character. The allegation of desertion made by the other! side was absurd. It had been proved that Salaman had regularly paid the amount agreed up under the deed of separation. . The respondent had painted the petitioner as black as possible. She alleged that Salaman had seduced her before marriage. If this were true, then she ■ showed herself to be of loose character, as she must have known what penalty society would exact for this union of East and West. The woman had proved of loose character after marriage, and at present was acting' as housekeeper for k wealthy Chinaman. This Chinaman had paid £3O through his solicitor- to keep his name out of the Divorce Court. This was admitted. . . ’ Mr. Jellicoe: What : s admitted is that he was blackmailed. Proceeding, Mr. Leicester submitted that Salaman was just as capable of bringing up the nliild as w;as the mother. He came before the Court because he loved the child and his whole life was Jxjund up in it. While the child remained with its mother the same stigma as was upon the mother would attach to the daughter. Applicant, on the evidence of the police, was a decent, good-living man. He had made good and was respected in a strange town. Counsel contended thkt Salaman was entitled to custody under common law; that custody should be given to the innocent party; that the mother bad been, ana still was, a person utterly unfit to be the guardian of the child or to look after it; that the father was a fit and proper parson to take charge |tf the child; and, lastly, that it was in the interests of the child herself that she should be placed under her father’s care.

His Honour said it was a question whether this child should be brought up as a Hindu or as a Christian. Mr! Leicester said the applicant intended to bring the-child up in the Christian faith. , Mr. Jellicoe: How a heathen can bring a child up in the Christian faith puzzles me. . Mr. Jellicoe asked if His Honour would like to see the child. 1 His Honour: No, I am suspicious of seeing the children in such cases as this, as I am afraid of their having been tutored. . , „ , His Honour said the point ot law involved was 3 very important one. Judgment would be reserved.