STRANGE COURT CASE

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIV, Issue 1179, 29 November 1924, Page 11

STRANGE COURT CASE

A SPIRITUALISTIC SMITH. MAINTENANCE ORDER REDUCED. AUCKLAND. Nov. 27. _ Numerous allusions to the spiritualistic interests of an Auckland man were made in an application which came before Mr Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court. Arthur Burgess (Mr L. K. Wilson) a blacksmith, of Dominion road, applied for a reduction of tlie £2 a week maintenance ordered by the Court to ho paid to his former wife, Sarah Ellen Burgess (Mr Singer). The parties are divorced. His Honour said he noticed that the order was in respect of the wife and two children, one of whom was now 16. Mr Singer admitted the child was now earning 15s a week. Applicant, ho remarked, had “voluntarily” reduced the amount to £l 7s 6d, and hud been paying that for some considerable time, without authority. He was now. £l3 or £l4 in urrears. Mr Wilson said applicant made only about £4 out of his smithy, and his was a deteriorating business. Mr Singer: W T e say the husband is not only an adept in spiritualistic matters, but also an adept at disguising his means. Applicant then entered the witness box and in giving his evidence conducted himself in such a manner as to receive one or two sharp reproofs from tho Judge. Ho gave his evidence in a loud, rapid manner. Mr Singer suggested that ho had derived a considerable income • from his spiritualistic efforts, and applicant started to reply in a round-about fashion. His Honour: If you would not talk quite so much and would answer the question we should get on better. Have you derived any revenue from spiritualistic work? None whatever; I “turned it down” two years ago. I am not attending a epiritualistio “church” now. MEETINGS IN THE HOUSE. Counsel referred to flip “poor dupes whom you extracted money from, ’ and suggested that Burgess still held spiritualistic meetings either in his house or elsewhere. Applicant admitted he had recently been holding spiritualistic meetings among his own friends. He had finished public work altogether. Do you get any subscription from persons attending?—l earn nothing from anything, except my own work. How often each week are these meetings held ?—I have no time or date for any meeting. Is it a fact that you have, what in spiritualism, and photography, a ‘ developing” class ?—I have nothing at all. When asked iftiother question Burgess responded bv making a personal remark about counsel. . , Ilis Honour: I am endeavouring to adjust tlu3 matter. If you answer in that way I won’t make any order. Be civil and answer questions decently, or I will strike cut vour applieatioi|. Counsel: Don’t you charge Is 6d a meeting t’o one class of “patients?”—Nothing of the sort. I make no charge. I hold meetings in connection with my own friends, but. on no set nights. To His Honour, applicant said he held his meeting twice a week. “NO BENEFIT WHATEVER.” Ilis Honour: Do you derive any benefit? I get no benefit whatever. I am not allowed by my faith in God to receive anything. . . . , , Counsel: Money is paid each night b\ the persons who attend? —Yes; they pay anything, of their own free will. ill's Honour: What do they pay?—sixpence, or whatever they like * Counsel: To whom is the money paid.— There is a committee. Applicant added that ho was not in the room when it was paid. It was given to the sick. It did not go to his present wife; she “did not believe in it.” Counsel said the position was entirely unsatisfactory. That sort of thing had been going on for years. Collections were made, and Burgess would not say into whose hands the money went. They know perfectly well that during the period of applicant’s married life with his former wife he was leaking a largo income from his spiritualistic business. Replying to Mr Wilson, applicant said sometimes six or seven people attended his meetings. In all about 12 people at times attended. If he had a shilling to spare he gave it to tho sick. Ilis Honour: Is there one person who always takes the money?—Not always; they appoint different people. Mrs Burgess said that her husband gave one of her sons one or two shillings a week to tell lies about her. She had had to borrow from a money-lender, and “nearly got locked up through going to a second money-lender.” Mrs Burgess gave evidence of her financial position, detailing certain debts she had. She had to let nine beds to pay her rent, and had no means of her own. Applicant used to make a good, income out of his spiritualistic business, taking a collection at the “church.”

“LACK OF FRANKNESS.”

Ilis Honour said it was mo,,st difficult to ascertain the financial position of either of the parties. lie was not satisfied that applicant made money from the spiritualistic busness, and lie ordered that the maintenance be reduced by 10s, to 30s a week.

In allowing costs to Mrs Burgess, Ilis Honour remarked upon tile way applicant had given his evidence. Had be been frank the case could have been disposed of in a few minutes.