UNUSUAL EVIDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 132, 15 December 1928, Page 10

UNUSUAL EVIDENCE

SEPARATION CASE Evidence of a very unsual nature was given in the Magistrate's Court to-day before Mr. J. H. Salmon, 5.M.,, when Violetta Alma Broughton applied for separation and maintenance against her husband, Leslie Weedon Broughton, on the grounds of cruelty and failure to maintain. Mr. O. C. Mazengarb appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. Scott for the defendant. Mr. Mazengarb said the complainant had had a most unfortunate experience with the defendant, who three years ago made his third matrimonial venture. Mr. Scott: "It .docsii't matter if he has been married one'hundred times. My friend is now talking to the newspapers." . Mr. Salmon said it was usual m such cases to give the history of affairs. Continuing, Mr. Mazengarb said that when the complainant married Brough ton in 1925 he had four children, and in August, 1926, her own child was born. Mrs. Broughton lived with her husband in various flats in Wellington, but their married life proved unhappy, with the result that the parties separated and an order was made against the husband for maintenance at £1 a week. A few months before Mrs. Broughton's child was born a reconciliation was effected. During the period prior to the birth of tho child Mrs. Broughton had had to endure considerable worry and trouble, and had been cruelly treated by Broughton. She early discovered that Broughton drank fairly considerably. Prior to their marriage ho had been a hotelkeeper, but when they were married he was a traveller. Mr. Scott: 'My friend is endeavouring to introduce camouflage into this matter for the sake of talking to the Press." Mr. Mazengarb: "Oh, don't be stupid." Mr. Salmon said Mr. Mazengarb was perfectly within his rights in going into. the history of the married life and giving anything relative to the relationship of the parties. Mr. Mazengarb then continued to address the Court, and said that on the 26th October last Broughton had interviewed the Court officers and had also seen the police, and had managed to obtain an urgent warrant for the arrest and committal of Mrs. Broughton to the Porirua Mental Hospital. The Magistrate: "One does not obtain an urgent warrant for arrest. Broughton obtained a warrant fox Mrs. Broughton's apprehension with a view to examination." Continuing, counsel said that Mrs. Broughton was taken from the bed of her sick child at the Hospital to the Police Station, where she was examinod by a doctor. She was then taken in a I taxi to Porirua, where, however, the doctors refused to admit her, as they considered sho was perfectly sane. She was TSrought back to town, her husband accompanying her on both journeys, but she had to remain in custody during the wcek-eud, and during the week-end her child died. In tho box, Broughton said that he was acting under police instructions when ho came to Court for tho warrant, as the Senior-Sergeant at the Mount Cook Station had told him that if ho did not apply for the warrant the police would do so themselves. He had last seen his wife some two or three weeks before, ho applied for a warrant. The Magistrate (sternly): "You come to Court and swear an information that a person is suffering from certain delusions when you havo not seen them for two or three weeks." Tho witness: "I was acting under police instructions." The Magistrate: "Do ypu mean to say you swear an information on say?"The defendant again said he was acting under instructions from tho police. Tho plaintiff, in evidence, gave instances of alleged cruelty and drunkenness on the part of her husband, whom she said she had not seen for three weeks prior to the Saturday she was arrested. After hearing the plaintiff's evidence further, the Magistrate adjourned further hearing of the case until Tuesday.