LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6997, 21 April 1884, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

) SUPREME COURT. —Divosoe. S atoiiday, ABBII< 19, 1884. , r [BoloreMr. Jmtico Gillies. J -His Honob took his seat on the Benoh at ten a.m.

SWANSO2T V. SWANSON AND I'IBIPI TE WIBIHAS A. ' Mr. B, Hesketh appeared forthe petitioner. There was no appearance on behalf of the 'respondent - or co-respondent* This was a petition for a dissolution :o£-the • marriage under the Divorce and Matrimonial; Causes Act, on account of the respondent's adultery with the co-respondent,at various times, in the months o£ February" and' March, 18S2. ;• , Mr.. Hesketh, in opening the case, said that the-petitioner: was married" to the respondent on the 22nd of January, 1882, by : the Registrar of Marriages, in Auckland. ( The husband: and wife, immediately afters the marriage, went to reside at the North;; Shore. They resided there, however, only a short time. The petitioner was a clerk in the Native Lands Court. A very short time—only, a few days—after the marriage, the petitioner waa called away- from hU home to attend upon the Court., His wife accompanied: him on that occasion. It was while he was .thus engaged that trouble commenced between husband and wife. Almost during the whole period of: cohabitation.they appeared to live unhappily together. She at an early period showed signs of displeasure,, There waa no immediate outburst of temjpor or quarrel between them,'but she manifested signs of great dissatisfaction. - She commenced to go out at night, and persisted in staying out. This was the state of things, about the 10th of February and after that date. On the 27 th of February he had to go to Hokianga to attend the Court.' He tried to get his .wife to remain with . her stepfather and 'mother during his absence. But she would not consent to this arrangement. The corespondent was one of the assessors of the Native Lands Court, and it was part of his duty to be at the places where the Court sat. She insisted upon accompanying the petitioner, and the petitioner did all he could to make her comfortable during the journey. The respondent seemed to have taken a fancy to Piripi, and at a very. early period her conduct towards him was suoh as to call forth remonstrances not only from the petitioner but from her relatives. When the party arrived at Herd's Point she repeated her misconduct, notwithstanding all remonstanoes, and on one occasion she was actually brought back to her husband by her relatives. On three or° four occasions between April the 19 th and May the 2nd, she was brought back by her relatives in this way. At the latter date cohabitation between husband and wife ceased altogether. After that she was seen at Kopuru and other parts of the colony. She was seen on these occasions in the company of the co-respondent. It would be proved that the respondent and co-respondent lived together as man and wife. They were seen together at Alexandra and at Kopus, and the witness would swear that they occupied the 'same sleeping place in a Maori whare. . It' would be proved that they occupied the same bed. The native name of' the respondent was Ema Mihaka, but she was aIBO known among the Maoris as Ema Te Otaota. It would be shown that during the whole of the period when these occurrences were taking place the respondent was remonstrated with by several natives as well as by her own relatives with the view of restoring her to her husband. After a time, however* Piripi (the co-respondent) refused to live with her any longer. But she olung to him, said she would .have him only for her husband. Piripi went home to his place at Kawhia. When the evidence would < be before the Court the petitioner prayed for a deoree nisi to dissolve the marriage. The marriage was solemnised in the presence of Hobaia Patuone," the grand-uncle of the bride, and Wi'Pene her step-father. It would appear that her relatives did all they possibly could to control and prevent unhappy occurrences which led np to the 1 present suit for a divorce. John Muir Wayland, Registrar of Marriages at Auckland in 1882, proved the solemnisation of the marriage between William Swanaon,.the petitioner, and Ema Mihaka, the. respondent. . Mr. James Davis acted as interpreter. There were present: G. Swanson, the brother of the bridegroom, and his sister, Hohbia Patuone. of Takapuna, grand uncle to the bride, Wi Pene, her step, father. The marriage was solemnised in the form prescribed by the statute. James Davis, licensed interpreter, deposed that he was present at the marriage. Witness acted as interpreter on that occasion. He interpreted the nature of the contract to the " lady " and the other natives present. He did so by direction of the petitioner. Had no doubt the lady understood all-that was interpreted to her. He (witness) understood the Maori language as well as the Maoris did themselves. William Swanson (Wiremu Wanihana), the petitioner, said: My wife's name was Ema Mihaka Te Otaota, and her mother's name was Rawiniha, I was married to the respondent on January 22nd, 1882. I lived with her for a short time at the North Shore. I am clerk in the Native Lands Court. I had to go to Wharigarei on the 21st of January. My wife went with me. After we Were in Whanearei a few days she became disagreeable ; she did not wish to live with me any longer; she wanted to go away. Asked her the reason for her conduct; There was a native assessor named Piripi at the place. She said," "I want to go: with .Piripi; I don't care to. live with yon - any longer, and I won't." Her mother remonstrated with her, and did all she could to keep the respondent in the house, but she would not stay. She said she wanted to go with Piripi, and she would go. Both hefc stepfather and her mother did all they could to keep her in her room. On the 27th of January . I. was ordered to go to Hokianga. I was anxious that my wife should remain at home. Told her stepfather and mother to keep her in the house. They did their best, I believo, to keep her at home. The assessor went to Hokianga. But the petitioner would not stay at.home. I bad also to attend the Court at that place. At the Bay of. Islands we stopped for a night. She got out of bed during the night unknown to me. The next morning 1 saw the respondent coming from the direotion of Pirimi's room. Her stepfather endeavoured to restrain her. On one occasion she jumped'out of the window of the room in which- h6r father had locked her.up. She threw a soapdish at him, and then said he assaulted her. At Hetd's Point she got worse. She became' quite unmanageable. Stayed at Herd's Point until the 25th of March. Instead of getting better she became woree. She left me several times. She wonld remain away at night—on one "occasion two nights. Her relatives remonstrated with her. When the Native Lands Court sat at Ohaeawai witness stopped at Gough's hotel. The respondent came to him there. He was advised to go to private lodgings for her. He did so. Left Ohaeawai on the 10th Of April. I went from there to Kawakawa. She was brought back to me by her relatives no less than six times. The respondent left me on the the 2nd of May at .Russell for the last time. She said she should not live with me. Her words were, "I don't want to have anything to do with you. I will not live with you. Saw her at Whangaroa the next day. Did not speak to her at Whangaroa. I never spoke to her since the 2nd of May, 1882. Saw her' since., in Alexandra, and Whatiwhatihoe. Did not speak to her. She was paying a visit to' her relations. She was staying- at Kopua, at Wahanui's place. There is no issue of the marriage. I was anxious that my wife should continue to live .with me. But I became afraid of my life. 'She has frequently threatened me. By the Court: I - knew 'the'prisoner three or four years before the marriage. It was her own wish to fce married to me. She was riot: constrained "or' forced -into tlie marriage by Iher relatives. [This conoluded "the evidence of the petitioner. A portrait of the respondent was put in. Sne was ' represented in the photograph as a handsome young Maori woman about 21 years of age.] Mr. C. O. Davis was sworn to interpret the .native evidence, which was to the foling effect":—Tamati, Tamihana (25) deposed that he lives at Kawhia (portrait of the respondent handed to witness), that iie knew the woman whose likeness'it was. Saw her in February, 1883, while witness was thrashing wheat. She was with her mother. Know Piripi Te -Wirihana. Kopua is his settlement. - Saw the respondent in the company of Pirihi. Witness knew 'where the respondent slept. ; She did. not sleep alone. She arid Piripi slept'tbgethbr "as though they were husband and wife. There is only one room in Maori houses, and several Maoris sleep in the-same house; The respondeat and. ; co-respondent slept- in their own bed. They conducted themselves geae«

tally towards , eaoh other:-; as husband i and wife. After been together two bights their friends came to take them away; that is, to separate them. Ema (respondent) Refused to go, and she held on to witneess arm. She Baid, "I will not go." : She oped out, " I will continue to have this man rinpi for my husband." Her friends ■ took her away. She stayed away, or was kept away, the rest of the time witness,was.there. On returning to the pla^aafter some absence aawthem together "again.' (He saw them-sleeping: together.then..,: He then knew that.Emayas-, a married . woman, because he .heard. her. Bay so. -..y----i Hoariri' Te Mapl said he lived at Te Kopria. - Knew the woman represented in the photograph..' He saw., heir _ and. Piripiyin February,;'-ISB3. . Theyt were then sleeping together, and living as .mart' and wife. He once saw tfrem sitting together on the bank of a stream. , Witness said to the man, "Ob, Pirlpi, cease living x with this woman; it is wrong." He said he would, but the woman said she would not. Shortly afterwards her friends came to fetch her.

; This concluded the evidence. j Mr. Hesketh moved the Court for a decree Yiisi (section 25 Divorce and Matrimonial CauSes Act), dissolving the*marriage. _ His Honor said the case of the petitioner had been clearly proved. There was nothing in the evidenee to suggest that there was any connivance or collusion between the parties. He therefore pronounced the decree nisi as prayed. Xhe petitioner declined to ask for coats. . BANKRUPTCY. i Re Lionel Phillips. —An adjourned meeting of the creditors of Lionel Phillips was held on Saturday before the Official Assignee, "who presided. The particulars of the estate have been already published.— Mr. G. N. Brassey appeared for the bankrupt, Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for certain Melbourne creditors, and Mr. O. F. Buddie appeared for other creditors.—The Official Assignee said the object of the present meet* ing was to confirm a resolution passed by the creditors at the last meeting, by which they agreed to accept the offer of the bankrnpt to pay 5s in the £, the tuainea3 to be handed over to him to enable him to pay the composition. He (Mr. Lawson) had advertised the notices required by the Act —Mr. Cooper: But the Aot requires that the Assignee's report should be sent to the outside creditors.—The Assignee said he recommended that the composition be. accepted. That was in the notice advertised, and was in effect • his report.—Mr. Cooper said some of the largest creditors were not present. Messrs. Moss, Davis, and others whose claims ware large, would not have assented to the resolution passed at the last meeting.—Mr. Roes George considered that this was a ease which required the fullest investigation. The bankrupt at the last - meeting made certain statements, which he believed could be disproved. — Mr. Theo. Cooper'::Knew of three creditors.at least who would; not 'confirm the resolution passed at the last meeting. - Bat in any case the.resolution could not be confirmed., by that meeting.' .There shonld bei three fourths iu value represented. • There -were creditors for more than a fourth of the liabilities who were not present. He begged to move that the meeting be'adjourned for a month, to ; enable' the' Melbourne • creditors, to be "represented.—The'- Official ' Assignee said - that looking ■ to' the- whole, of the circumstances aßd the nature of 'the he recommended- - the acceptance of the composition. • The place was'docked np. The bnsiness would 'be damaged, and the bankrupt would be less able to pay a composition the longer the business was closed.—Mr. Bees George considered _ that the largest creditors wonld not be satisfied "unless there was a searching investigation. He believed thet the conduct of the debtor's business-was disgraceful. . He would not assent to any resolution confirming the previous resolution by the present meeting. He had Been some ot the largest creditors, who were extremely dissatisfied.— Mr. Theo. Coopsr : Mr. Bnrenfried is in town,' but he has a great objection to be present at this meeting. One is a business objection. The other is an objeotion of a different kind, which it is not necessary to mention.—Mr." G. N. Brassey thought the creditors would be treating the debtor with great harshness and injustice if they refused to carry out - the object for whioh that meeting was convened.—Mr. Bees George thought there was shown a case. of : reokless trading ■ which ought to be fully investigated, t- Mr. Brassey said the consequence of adjourning' for any lengthened period- would be to prevent the debtor paying the dividend. The ;debtor was prepared to carry but the agree-ment-if the creditors would allow him.—Mr. Woo llama : I am prepared to move that the resolution passed at the last meeting be confirmed.—Mr. E. Lewis: I shall second that resolution.—Mr. Theo. Cooper : It is no use putting the resolution. It cannot have any effect. There is more than a fourth of the creditors absent.—Considerable discussion ensued as to, the length of the adjournment.—lt was eventually agreed-that the meeting should be adjourned to Monday.

POLICE COUB.T.—SATDBDAT. (Before H. G-. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.]

Drunkenness.—Four persons were punished for this offence, and. James McGeoch, for habitual drunkenness, was sentenced to a month's imprisonment.

Indecent Exjosube.—Henry Mcßrierly was charged with indecent exposure in the Albert Park, and was fined £5 and costs, or, default, a month's imprisonment. VAGBANcr. —Agnes Olive Jesser pleaded not guilty to a charge of having no lawful visible means of support. This woman was arrested with the previous prisoner, Mcßrierly. They were found together in the Albert Park, a lady having reported them to the police. Sergeant McMahon and Constable Hansen, who arrested the prisoners, gave evidence as to the position in which they found the prisoner. Constable Mitchell gave evidence as to bar habits. She was of very intemperate habits, had broken up her husband's house, and was the constant associate of prostitutes. She was only released from gaol on Wednesday morning. The prisoner made a long statement as to her troubles. It was her husband who broke np her home. She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Wm, Benson was charged with having no lawful means of support. -He pleaded not guilty, and prodnced a witness, Blondin's agent, who proved that for the last fortnight he had been working for them. He was discharged. . Assault.—Bernard Fitzpatrick, on remand, was charged with assaulting John Brame and threatening to take his life. Mr. Mahony. appeared for the accused, and pleaded not guilty. The prosecutor deposed that prisoner was at ths Salvation .Army barracks on Wednesday e T enicj last, and waited outside for about as hon* Witness was .told of this, and caution id *o be careful how . he left the ■ bi'ilding. As> witness was coming out by >ne »Ibor, prisoner rushed np, and making ns« q 'Very fool language, and threatened to dt far him. Witness then went to another door, but was again met by the prisoner vho struck at him, and threatened to do for him. - This was one of more than a score times during the past three months on which he had been insulted and struck by the accused, both in the street and in other placeß. The prisoner had been correspondent of the . Free Press, and witness severely criticised this correspondence, and that, was, he believed, the reason why accused followed him about. He feared that prisoner would carry- out his threats. He did not know prisoner's name until three months ago, when He was arrested for stealing a copy of the Free Press from the Free Public Library. Cross-examined : He was editor of .the Free Press and its proprietor. He was questioned at some length as to certain articles referring to the; accused which appeared in the Free Press. He admitted that prisoner had' demanded an apology for certain statements which had appeared in the Free Press, accusing the prisoner of " systematically ' stealing the Free Press from the Library, and Other institutions, and being. an;- emissary of ; the' 'Romish' priests. Mri "Blakey, blockmaker and doorkeeperof the Salvation barracks, gave evidence as- to having more than once seen the accused assault Mr. Brame. He had also assaulted the witness, and had repeatedly to be removed from the barracks. He 4id not see the assault on the 11th, but he had prevented the acaused from going. Mr. Mahony addressed the Court. He could not' put the accused in the box to give evidence, as he was stone deaf. Sometime ago his arm was torn off, and he suffered acutely, and that was the cause of his loss of hearing. He commented on the articles published in Mr. Braine's paper, and read extracts containing violent personal attacks on the accused; He reminded the Court that in reference , to his conviction for stealing the paper from the Fablio Library, it was in

donsequence ,of a letter written - the City Conncil that proceedings werti taken. These tantalizing and irritating statements excited the prisoner, who had repeatedly asked, for an apology, which was refused. The Court held the case to be proved, and ordered the defendant to be bound over to keep : the.peace for six monthsinhis awa recognizances of £20 and tno suretiea of gig each...-,:

With DzjebtioNc—James Marshall Somerville waa charged with leaving hia wife and children .without adequate means of support. Mr. Napier appeased for the prosecution, and Baid he was happy to state that ths parties had amicably: arranged matters, and the intervention of the Corirt would' not be required. He would aik leave to withdraw the charge. Withdrawn accordingly. ; Pboyokixg Language.—Daniel Driscoll, alia 3 Charley Webster, was charged with using provoking and threatening language to Thomas Higgins, in Lome-street, on the 12th instant. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. Napier appeared for the prosecution, antiL opened the case. Thomas Higgioa (the plaintiff), Annia Higgins (his wife}, and Ellen Hutchinson deposed to the language used, which waa o{ a 'very gross character. The defendant had also threatened to "kick the stuffing' ont" of the prosecutor. The defendant gave his version, and called Eliza Breen to corroborate his statement that the language alleged was not used. Bis Worship held the charge proved, and ordered defendant to be boond over, himself in £20 and two sureties of £iq each, to keep the peace for Bix months and fto pay the costs, £4. A second charge against the same defendant was withdrawn by Mr. Napier. ' .. ' .