A PITIFUL CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 10900, 7 April 1899, Page 2

A PITIFUL CASE.

A case with pitiful surroundings, which has occupied the attention of the Court on more than one occasion, came before Mr C. C. Graham,, S.M., this morning, when William Henry Gore was charged with disobeying an order for the maintenance of his wife, Elizabeth Gore.

Mr Solomon, who appeared for the defendant, said he was very sorry to have to come to the court time after time in connection with this matter, and tell the same story. The complainant was a respectable young woman years ago, and the defendant was the son of a well-known citizen. He married her, and unfortunately she had been the curse of his life. She had ruined both his life and that of his children's by her drunken habits. She went about the street continually in a drunken state, and the defendant had had to break up his home several times through her. The police had even come to the court and given evidence that she had been seen lying on the floor of her house drunk, and the little children playing about her. He again took her back about three weeks, but she had got beastly drunk again, and left his new home at Mosgiel, taking £2 with her, The defendant did not know what to do for her, but it was out of the question to ask the man to pay money under the order. The Complainant denied that she was addicted to drink.

I Mr Solomon said Mr Carew warned her about her drinking habits. The Defendant stated that he had been married for eleven years, and had three children. He paid his wife money regularly under the order uni.il she expressed a wisl^.tojcome.rtack to him again. This he agreed to, and took her to live at Mosgiel; so as to get her away from her old companions* On returning home last Tuesday week he found her lying drunk on the floor, and £2 ss, which he had placed in a drawer, gone. She was in the same state for the three following days, and on Saturday she left on her own accord. Witness was only earning £2 2s a week, and, in order to look after his children, he had to pay 6s a week for a housekeeper, 10s for rent, ana if he gave her 7s a week, as the Court had ordered him to do, that only left him with 19s for the maintenance of himself and his children. She laid an ' information against him for stabbing her, but J the justice#dismissed the case, saying that she ' received the injury by putting her hand j through a window. She had since laid an in- , formation against him for assault, but now withdrew it. The constable at Mosgiel had to go to a hotel and stop the publican from serving her. He had been compelled to sell up his home five times, and during the intervals she had repeatedly come back to him. It had cost him between £6O and £7O for court cases.. —On being cross-examined by his wife witness said he defied anyone to say that he had been drunk. Mr Graham said that this was not the first time the parties had been before him, so that he knew something about the case. It was difficult to know how to deal with the matter. He did not like to reverse an order made by Mr Carew, but from the evidence it was very hard to ask a man to maintain her. Yet, he could hardly turn her adrift. Mr Solomon said he did not wish that to be done. The only possible thing that could be done with a view to reforming her was to give her a chance of going to work. - The Complainant: I am too weak to work. The last time I went to work my husband . came and gave me a black eye. I The Defendant: I deny that. Mr Solomon did pot see how that jcould be i when she asked her husband to take her back ! again. Counsel felt somewhat diffident in asking His Worship to accept the husband's own statement, and he therefore asked that the matter might stand over for a few minutes to hear what the constab\e at Mosgiel had to say- *"' ! This was agreed to, and on resuming, Constable Christie stated that he had not been to a hotel at Mosgiel and asked that she should not be served. He had not seen her lately, but had seen her drunk once or twice about twelve months ago. To the complainant: He had seen her slightly under the influence of drink in the township at 'Mosgiel. In answer to His Worship, the constable said he visited the house and found it in a very clean state. His Worship said the husband said one thing and the woman another. He could not take jit upon himself to upset the order without more .corroborative evidence. The woman could not be left absolutely destitute, so that he would have to make an order for the payment of the arrears. If the defendant wished , to have the order upset he must make applii cation. ■, The Defendant: Yes; I will make an application next Thursday." His Worship then inflicted a sentence of seven days, the warrant not to be issued until the defendant was given an opportunity of paying the arrears (£1 Is).