THE COURTS-TODAY.

Evening Star, Issue 14572, 22 May 1911, Page 4

THE COURTS-TODAY.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before J. K. Bartholomew, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness.—Two male first offenders were fined 5s each, and a female first offender who did not appear was lined 10s or twenty-four hours.—Charles Han is was fined 10s or forty-eight hours, and a similar penalty was inflicted on him on another charge of breach of tho peace. Obscene Language. —Henry Smith was convicted on this charge, and fined 20s, or seven days. Remanded. —On charges of mischief and using obscene language George Charlesworth was remanded to tho 24th inst. By-law Cases. —Allan Johnstone was fined 10s, with ICg costs, for allowing horses to wander on tho Southern Reserve on May 2.—A young man named Henderson was fined 5s and costs for riding his bicycle after sunset without a light. Domestic Unhappiness.—Elizabeth Jane Muirhead applied to tho Court for a separation order, a maintenance order, and guardianship order against her husband, Duncan Muirhead, on the grounds of persistent cruelty and failure to provide adequate maintenance for her, together with absence of any intention to do so.—Complainant said that tho parties were married in August, 1906, complainant then being a widow, with five children. There were no children by the present marriage. Defendant was often out of work, largely through his own fault, and at those tunes lived on his family’s earnings. Even when in work ho failed to give her more than £1 a week, calling himself "the boarder.” Ho was addicted to horsc-rac-ing and gambling, and usually spent his Sundays playing two-up. Ho was violonttempered, and had several times struck her. On a previous occasion, when complainant obtained a maintenance order against him, defendant disappeared into Southland, where ho lived for six months under an assumed name. In twelve montlis she only received £lO from him.— John Sharp, a neighbor of the parties (whose homo is at North Dunedin), gave evidence concerning several disturbances caused by defendant’s behaviour. —William Coates, son of complainant, testified to the unhappiness caused in tho homo by Muirhead, and said that he considered it would not bo safe for his mother to bo left unprotected with his stop-father. Witness broke a pea riflo over defendant’s head when Muirhead struck his sister.— James Coates, brother of tlm previous witness, also gave evidence on similar lines.— Defendant, in evidence, said that ho was frequently absent from Dunedin mining. Daring the last twelve months ho had usually paid complainant £1 per week, sometimes £2 a week. Besides that, on occasions his wife had come to tho places whore he was working, and obtained up to £4 or £5 from him. i lie never refused her money. He denied i having used the obscene language in the house or when ho was ordered out of the house by complainant a fortnight ago. He alleged that ho had pieced together a letter card received by his wife and torn up by her, which proved to be an invitation or confirmation of an appointment with a man. Ho discovered that a man named Wilkinson wrote this. When taxed with it Wilkinson declared that his girl wrote it, but the girl domed this, and said Wilkinson wrote it. Witness had given the letter card to a man to preserve, but this custodian’s bouse had since been burnt down and the card destroyed. On tho evening mentioned in it he pressed his wife to stay with him and "not meet this man,” hut she refused. Ho had not struck his wife, and he denied that ho had broken her teeth. Ho admitted having had a letter from a lady friend in Scotland, but the intimation therein that she could provide him with a wife was only jocular. Defendant made a statement that on Iris return from Nokomai in April, 1910, he discovered his wife at tho house of a man named Taylor, at Green Island, under circumstances upon which he would have based divorce proceedings if ho had had the money to do so. (Ollier divorce proceedings instituted by tho husband, but unsuccessfully, wore mentioned during tho course of to-day’s proceedings.)— Complainant, recalled, said that tho letter card was really from a young lady friend of hers, who had got her " boy ” to write it. She denied any impropriety with Taylor, and explained" tho circumstances of Muirhead’s visit to Taylor’s house, witness then acting as housekeeper, being accompanied by her daughter, aged fourteen, who was in tho same room with her.—His Worship granted belli the separation order and tho maintenance order, tho guardianship order not being necessary in the case of step-children. The payment under the maintenance order he fixed at £1 per week', saying that defendant should bo able to contribute that amount seeing that ho claimed to have contributed at leas! that sum weekly on an average. Fn-m tho evidence, however, he very much doubted whether defendant had done so. Commenting on certain Jotters received by complainant from defendant (put in as evidence), His Worship said they expressed his clear intention of not sending her any money. Furthermore, they contained same of the most obscono and disgusting matter that he had ever seen in any communication. These terms had not been made use of on the spur of tho moment, as when a man was acting under provocation. It was | not necessary for him to find whether do- j Cendant had been guilty of cruelty to his | wile, but it was probably the case. Defendant bail made some charges against her I which, ho had by no means proved.—His i Worship allowed costs (£1 Is) to Mr Bedford, who appeared for complainant. Mr Irwin appeared for defendant.