EVIL SPIRITS FROM OTHER WORLD

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 296, 10 September 1926, Page 8

EVIL SPIRITS FROM OTHER WORLD

EXTRAORDINARY DIVORCE CASE RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES PART MAN AND WIFE ALLEGED OBJECTIONABLE INFLUENCES Bv Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, September 'J. Evil spirits from another world floated about the Supreme Court this morning. Mediums and spiritualists were present in person, and the spirit of an Indian chief, Assam, enveloped the courtroom when a most extraordinary defended divorce petition was taken before Mr. Justice Herdman. The parties to the action, brought on the ground of mutual separation, were Robert Morven Andrews represented by Mr. R. A. Singer) and Emily Andrews (for whom Mr West appeared). Mr. Singer stated that the deed of separation was entered into on August 1, 192'2. The parties had been married for about 20 years, and were not very young at the time of the ceremony. The petitioner was the second husband of respondent. The defence was that the separation agreement was brought about bv the wrongful act and conduct of petitioner. A number of witnesses would be called to support petitioner in his statement that the parties were on terms of complete happiness. In March, 1920, respondent fell under the will of the most evil influence in this city, a pseudo-spiritualist named Arthur Burgess. Mr. West: Is that relevant? Mr. Singer said that he would show that the separation was brought about bv wrongful conduct of the wife. The unhappiness commenced from that month. She would lead her husband from house to house because this ridiculous mountebank said that evil spirits were in a house. Burgess poured all sorts of ideas into her head, and most evil was a suggestion that her first husband was communicating with her. Matters came to such a pass that she would address her dead husband’s spirit in the, bedroom while petitioner was present. Another point about Burgess was that he said he was under the control of an Indian chief, Assam, hut, suggested counsel, that was an alias for Burgess. Otic of his most objectionable influences was that he persisted in telling respondent of various complaints from which petitioner was going to die. He induced her to believe that her husband would die of cancer. When that failed, Burgess said that it would he Bright’s disease, but that failed. Burgess then said that an accident on tlie wharf, where petitioner worked, would kill him. , Mrs. Andrews became so much addicted to tins pseudo-spiritualist that she became a member of his church, and was a collector of coin, at the door. She led her-husband a life of misery, and had taken him to live with Burgess. Later thev separated and’ had not lived together since. Counsel read the following advertise* ment, which he said was the sort of rubbish Burgess dealt with : spiritualism. ORANGE HALL. NEWTON, SUNDAY. MARCH 6. 1921, at 7 p.m. Mr Burgess. Spiritual- Health Diagnoser and Psychometical Teacher, will deliver an important address tin-, riot the control of the Indian Chief, Assam. Subject: “If Jesus Christ is Spirit what are those that worship Him?” I shall deliver on Sunday one of the most, important addresses ever delivered by me since I bare, been in this world, and shall lay the whole thing bare. Counsel added that Burgess was born and bred a blacksmith, and still carried on his trade. To Drive Away Evil Spirits, Petitioner said that be was married •in London in 1907. He was respondent’s second husband. He was 04 years of age and his wife was two years vounger. In December, 1911, he and his wife came to New Zealand. Lp to 1920 be had accumulated about £lBOO that had been taken from his wages. Witness and his wife were on perfectly happv terms up to that time. In March of that year he fell in with Arthur Burgess. Respondent was ill at the time. Across the road there lived some spiritualists who were, it was said, sending evil spirits into the house. It was then that a friend spoke of Burgess, who was sent for to drive away the evil spirits. Burgess brought his companion, a Miss Blakey. Respondent told witness after Burgess had seen her that when he took her hand it was like taking hold of a galvanic batterv. Since the agreement to separate was made he had not liven with West, witness said: “When I married respondent she bad a house property in London. After -we came here she asked me io buy a Bible. That was the first time she had ever taken an interest in the Bible.” Tn replv to His Honour, Mr. West said that thev would show that petitioner had maligned and insulted Jus wife until she could not stay, with him. Mr. West (to witness) : Did von say not that the Bible was a filthy book . Witness: I did not. Air West: Don’t von read books oi an extreme socialistic nature-Bol-shevik, in fact? . Witness: If vou explain what von mean bv Bolshevik I will answer von Mr West: Well, extreme socialism? Witness (heatedlv) : There is no such th-’ng as extreme socialism. To His Honour, counsel said. We charge this man with insulting conduct which caused the separation. His Honour: What is the use ot these people living together? Mr West: We know that if he gets a divorce he will leave New Zealand, and that will be the last we will see °\lr Singer: That is not a correct thin- to sav. Mr. West could suggest such\ thin", but lie should not make it a fact. The petitioner objects to paving' anything towards the upkeep of Hrs esiaW ; shm»nt run bv Burress. Mr West said that the wife would allere that she bod been driven 'rnm file house bv her husband. The Wife’s Story. Respondent, in evidence, said that she and her husband had religious differences. R’te was a spiritualist and her husband did not beheve in her religion He thought she was an tinfortunate woman, but she was mute happv When she left her husband she did not go to live at Burgess s II His Honour: Up to the present, it appears that he savs she is a spirituaifst and she savs he is a Bolshevik I hare to decide wheth-r th< husband has been guilty of any wrongful act There has been no evidence of that, ana I must

grant a decree nisi to be moved absolute in three months, petitioner to pay respondent’s costa on the lower scale.