LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7644, 22 May 1886, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. day, May 21. [Before ( jHls Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] Robert Fawcett (Petitioner), Elizabeth Fawcett (Respondent), and William Edward Downing (Co-respondent).—This was a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery of the respondent with the corespondent. Mr. Hesketh (Hesketh and Riohmond) appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent and co-respondent were not represented and had tiled no defence. Mr. Hesketh opened tho case. The petitioner was residing at Okoroiri, near Cambridge, Waikato, and had been married to the respondent Elizabeth Mercer, spinster, at St. Sepulchre's Church, by the Rev. B. T. Dudley, on January 9, 1577. Tho corespondent was a stockman on the farm of which the petitioner was manager, and left the station on October 4 last year. On the following day, Mrs. Fawcett came to Auckland, nominally on a visit to her sister. Here she was joined by Downing, and they proceeded to spier, where they now live together as man and wife. On October 10 Mr. Fawcett received the following letter:— Auckland, October 8. You will not be surprised to hear that Lizzie iB leaving with me to-day. The talk that you and Mrs. Karr about her and you not stoping it at once maid Lizzie express her love to me, which I have noi dout of. She nurst me when I was sick and no friend near me, therefore I intend to stick to her for the rest of my life. You are to got divoroe as soon as you like.—W. Downing." The petitioner communicated with Mr. Pigott. Mrs. Fawcett's brother-in-law, asking him to prosecute the matter, and he corresponded with Downing, at Hastings, Hawke'a Hay, receiving two or three letters, which would be put in evidenco as evidence against the respondent and as evidence against the co-respondent. Evidence would be produced to show that acts of adultery had been committed iu ■ September and subsequently, and also to show that the respondent and co- respondent were now cohabiting as man and wife. Robert Fawcett, petitioner, deposed that Elizabeth Fawcett, the respondent, was his wife. They were married at St. Sepulchre's Church, on the 9th January, 1877, by . tho Rev. Mr. Dudley. They lived together in Mangere, and finally settled near Cambridge. They resided together and cohabited up to the sth October. There was no issue of the marriage. Up to that time he had no reason to suspect anything improper on the part of his wife. On that day she left for Auckland, to visit her sister, Mrs. Pigott, and he placed her on the train at Oxford. Not receiving any letter from Mr. Pigott, he was uneasy, and wrote, and. on the 10th he received a letter from Downing,

A stockman on the station, who had been living in his house for two years. He went to Cambridge on the 4th (Sunday), and witness understood he was going to Auckland, and then from there north. He identified Downing's photograph, also that of Mrs. Fawcett. Downing's letter was pot in, and the writing identified by the witness. Upon receipt of the letter, he telegraphed to Mr. Pigott, his wife's brother-in-law. Up to the present time she left on the sth of October there had been no uuplessautuess between himself and his wife. In reply to His Honor, the witness said that about a fortnight previous Mrs. Coyle had been down, and told his wife that people had been talking about her and Downing. She came home very excited, and asked witness whether he had said anything about it, and she said certainly not. That was all that transpired about what was referred to in the. letter. Witness had never heard any talk of the kind, but when she spoke to him he asked her if there was anything in it, and she replied of course not —that it was only people's talk. He had never observed any familiarity between his wife and Downing. _ (The certificate of marriage was put in.) Hugh Campbell, settler at Okoroiri, Waikato, deposed that ho knew tho petitioner, and respondent, and co respondent. I hey lived at Okoroiri. Witness was in the habit of passing Mr. Fawcett a house. On Sth of September he went to Mr. Fawcetts house to cart straw, and he went to the house with a meat account. [Witness gave evidence as to what ho saw. He went to the door and knocked, and Mrs. Fawcett came to the door. Downing did not come out of the bedroom. Mrs. Fawcett looked very red in the face. lie asked her for the meat account, and she did not give it to him, but said she would give it to one of the men. Witness again passed the bedroom window. lie did not mention this circumstance to Mr. Fawcett at the time, but he mentioned it to his father next day, and his father told Mr. Fawcett of it some two months afterwards. Margaret Coster, domestic servant, deposed that she was formerly employed as waitress at- the Wynyard lioardiughouse, Official Bay. She was so employed during the month of October last. -She recognised the photos produced as these of Mr. and Mrs. Downing, whom she saw at the Wynyard House. Mr. Downing came first in the morning. She could not tell the date, but it was in the beginning of October. Downing asked whether they had accommodation for himself and wife. They hesitated at first, but he said his wife would be down by the next train, She came the next day between four and five o'clock, and he brought her to the house, and they occupied the same bedroom. Witness took Mrs. Downing some breakfast before she got out of bed. This was by Mr Downing's orders. At that time Mrs. Goldsbro' had charge of the Wynyard Boardinghouse, but she had since gone to Melbourne. Edwin Reuben Pigott deposed to knowing the parties to the action. He was married to Mrs. Fawcett's sister, and Mrs. Fawcett wa3 in the habit of staying at his house when she came to town. In October last, in consequence of a communication from Mr. Fawcett, he commenced to make inquiries about Downing and Mrs. Fawcett. He wrote to Downing and received replies, but he could not swear to his handwriting, although ho believed it to be Downing's. One reply was dated November 19, which was a reply to a telegram he had Bent, and in this Downing gave hi 3 name in full, witness having asked for it. The first letter he received from Downing was dated November 12, and a subsequent one was dated July 23, and a further communication undated,' but the envelope boro the postmark April 0. Witness was present at the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Fawcett, and signed the registry as witness. Mr. iawcett was recalled, and identified the handwriting of the letters received by Mr. Pigott as being Downing's. In reply to His Honor, the witness said he had had no communication with the co respondent, or with his wife, or made any arrangements regarding this divorce. There was no collusion between them. Mr. Hesketh then put in affidavits, and citations, and closed his case. His Honor said the evidence of adultery was conclusive, and granted a decree nisi. Mr. Hesketh applied for costs as against the corespondent, but His Honor said as costs were not asked for in the petition, he did not think he could have fair notice, but he would consider the matter. Subsequently Mr. Hesketh quoted several authorities, ami His Honor made the order for costs against the co-respondent.

John Lambert (Petitioner), Elizabeth Lambert (Respondent).—Mr. Earl appeared for the petitioner. Respondent did not appear, Mr. Earl said this was a case in which the petitioner, a Greek fisherman, asked for a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery. No co-respondent was joined, as the respondent was a common prostitute. No appearance had been entered by the respondent. John Lambert, the petitioner, deposed that he was married at the Registrar's office, Auckland, to Elizabeth Brady, the week before Christmas twelvemonths. His wife, previous to their marriage, was living in Chancery • street, with her mother. He lived with her about a month after marriage a3 man and wife, but she was always out with bad girls when he came home to his meals, and finally, she clcarcd out. He had never struck her, and h. d treated her well. The first time she had left him was on the occasion of the fire f in the New Zealand Timber Company's premises. They went to the fire together, but she refused to come home with him, and went away with some people who she iaid were her lovers. She returned three days afterwards, and remained another week. She asked him to give her another chance, and he did. After this week on returning home he found that she had cleared out again, and taken his box. She went to Freeman's Bay to live with some other prostitutes, and had never returned to him. She had since been living on the town aa a prostitute. He had seen her several

times with prostitutes, and she insulted him in the street. When she first cleared out she lived with Robert Sargent for a week, and had subsequently lived with others whom he did not know. He had never since cohabited with her. In reply to His Honor the petitioner said he had only known the girl three weeks before he married her. He had known her father, and he had spoken to the girl, but he knew nothing of her mother. She told him she was tired of her life, and wanted a home, and he thought he would do hor a good turn. He did not then know that she was living a loose life. He took a house in Fort-street, and furnished it for her. He never quarrelled with her before she left him, and he always treated her well. Witness did net drink. Here a difficulty arose. The petitioner could not road, and could not, therefore, be examined as to the certificate of marriage, and the witnesses (two fishermen) were not available. Mr. Karl was permitted to examine him as to his description, birthplace, etc., to ascertain that it corresponded with tho description given in the certificate. Detective Herbert gave evidence to the effect that Elizabeth Brady, or Lambert, whom he had known for about 12 months, was during that time ft common prostitute, living i' brothels, and associating with prostitutes, and sho had been arrested for drunkenness. Her name was on the list of prostitutes treated under the Contagious Diseases Act. His Honor held that tho evidence was insufficient. There must be clear proof of marriage, and there were also certain very suspicious circumstances antecedent and subsequent to the marriage. It was a serious matter dissolving a marriage, and the Court had to satisfy itself of all those facts before granting a dissolution of the marriage, Mr. Earl applied for an adjournment, aud it was granted till the next sitting of the Court. This concluded the civil sittings of the Court. _______ R.M. COURT. -Friday. [Before Mr. H. G. Setli Smith, Esq., R.M.] Shipping Cask: A. Hs Nathan' v. Mortyer. — This was a claim brought by an Auckland merchant against tho captain of the ship Stockbridge for damages to goods during their carriage from Londou to this port. Mr. H. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. R. Laishley, instructed by Messrs. Devore and Cooper, represented the defendant. The particulars of claim set out that the defendant negligently and carelessly carried and stowed curtain goods—s cases starch, 11 boxes candle?, 12 cases milk—which had been received in i>ood order and condition, and valued at £19 14s Id: The damage were estimated at £10 8s sd, for which amount the claim was made. James Mortyer,, master of the British ship Stockbridge, deposed that he had made voyages in her from Liverpool to Calcutta with salt, grain, aud seed. None of his cargo had been damaged till the present voyage. The cargo was a fair load, not a light one. On arriving in Auckland it was discovered that certain packages had been damaged by sea water. Captains Clayton and Davidson had indicated the damage. He had no doubt but that salt water was the cause, as the goods were stained. He and the survoyers were satisfied that the water came in through a soiled pipe, which led from the closet. The valve bolt was broken, and when the ship rolled the sea water oozed in. There had been very heavy weather on March 12 and 13. A cyclone had been experienced then. (The ship's log /as put in evidence. The log had been regularly kept by the mate. (The witness read extracts relating to the weather.) Cross examined : There was a quantity of iron on board, which would cause the ship to roll in a storm. He was present when a survey of the ship was made in London. He could not say that the closet pipe was examined. The ship suffered damage on the voyage on account of the heavy weather in March. James Samuels, chief otiiccr of the ship, gave almost corroborative testimony as to the condition of the vessel. He was of opinion that the damage was done by the inflow of salt water through the pipe. During the voyage the ship's deck was often flooded with water. Edward Lloyd, ship's carpenter, gave evidence as to the condition of the bolt, which, he said, would be broken by a sudden rush of the sea. It had been previously loosened by the action of tho waters. Captain Davidson deposed to making a survey of the ship with Captain Clayton. He found some of the cargo (marked A.H.N.) damaged; the packages were evidently damaged by salt water. Fie traced the line of water to the leak in tho pipes, and found the valve-bolt loose. On handling it he discovered that it was broken inside. His theory was that the holt was broken by an outside concussion. Captain Clayton was also called,and examined as to making the survey with the previous witness. George Leahy, ship and engine smith for 35 years, was examined as to making a bolt for that damaged on the vessel. Thomas Inglia, blacksmith, had seen the bolt. The position was explained to him by the captain of the vessel He was of opinion that the metal was good. The bolt, considering the purpose for which it was used, might have been broken by the rolling of the ship. A sudden blow of the waves would do it. For the defence rebutting evidence waßcalled. Captain Worsp(marine surveyor), George Eraser (shipowner), Richard J. Ball (engineer at Mr. Leahy's), James Mclntyre (brass finisher), and Captain Henry Elliott (stevedore, and formerly master mariner for forty years) were examined, as being experts. This closed the evidence, and the C.iurt adjourned to Saturday morning, when counsel will reply on the evidence. POLICE COURT.-Fkiday. [Before Messrs. C. D, Whitcombe, L. D. Nathan, and J. Nevrman, J P.'» ] Dronkbnnesh. — John Decent was fined ~>i and costs ; Letitia Hughes was lined 10s and coats, or 4S hour?, for a second offence. Mary Richards, for habitual drunkenness, was lined £5 and costs, or 14 days. Larceny.John Johnson (farm labourer) was charged with stealing £1 16s 6d, the moneys of Robert McKr.y, at Lake Takapuna, on May 13. The accused pleaded uuilty. From the explanation of the faots by Sergeant Pratt, it seemed the accused had been in the employ of the complainant, and removed a pair of trousers. Mr, McKay (who was in Court) said the accused had been in his employ for about four years. In reply to the Bunch, he said he would be willing to take the accused into his employ again if the conviction was recorded agamst him, and he was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. The accused was then discharged. ftLr Gnoe-SELLINQ. — In the adjourned case againHt Mary Bowen, for selling beer without a license, Sergeant Pratt stated that an arrangement had been made with counsel for the defence to adjourn the informations to Saturday. Adjourned to Saturday. The " Dutch Auction" Cask : The Fish Industry.—The adjourned charge against John Eaton for a breach of the Auctioneers' Licensing Act, by selling fish at the Auckland Fish Arcade on May 10, was called on. Messrs. T. Cotter and Theo. Cooper appeared for the defendant. Mr. Cotter applied for an adjournment of a week, and in doing so said that an amendment to the Act was being introduced into the House of Representatives, which would probably deal with tho section of the Act under which the charge was laid. The Bench remarked that the Act was very probably ultra vires. Adjourned to Friday, May 28. The Assault Casks.—William George Garrard was charged with assaulting Thomas 15. llannaford, by striking him in the face with his clenched fist, and there was a crossinformation laid by Garrard against Hannaford for a similar assault. Mr. Rigby appeared for the prosecution for Hannaford, an.l Mr. J. O'Meagher for Garrard, who was not present. On the application of Mr. O'Meagher, the cases were adjourned to Tuesday. [Before Messrs. C. D. Whitonnibo and J. Newman, J.P.V] Cruelty to Animals Cask.—Ernest Bill (adjourned from May 7) was charged with a breach of the Police Offences Act by illtreating a heifer, by beating the said heifer violently on the head with a stockwhip at Mount Eden, on April 23. Mr. W. Thome appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Mr. T. Cotter for tho defendant, who pleaded not guilty. From the evidence given by three lads John Vincent (16), Thomas Shepherd (14), and James Detupsey—it seemed that on Good Friday the defendant was endeavouring to drive a cow and heifer to the pound on the Mount Eden Road. The calf became exhausted, and lay down under a bush, from where the defendant could not move it, after striking it repeatedly with the Mash of a stockwhip. In cross-examination, Vincent said he had picked up a bottle, which the defendant told him to put down. Edward Woolfield, Inspector of Slaughterhouses, deposed that ho was passing about noon of the day in

question. He saw a wellbred young heifer lying under a bush, evidently in great pain. Prom information given to him by aonio lads standing by, he went to a man across the read. He was the defendant, and said he had been driving the calf. Cross-examined: The defendant denied striking the calf on the head. Charles Lawrence was also called. Richard Sandall, butcher, Symonds-street, deposed to an interview he had with the defendant in regard to the calf, which was his property. For the defence Mr. Cotter contended that there was no case to answer. The Bench considered that there was. Ernest Hill, farmer at Mount Albert, deposed that the cow and heifer were trespassing upon his land. He was all the morning trying to get them to the pound. He succeeded with the cow, but the heifer lay down under a tree in the meantime. He had used no unnecessary violence with the whip (produced). James Smith, dairyman, saw the animals running up and down the cross roads, and on to the main road. John Renshaw, proprietor of the Boiling • down Works, Mount Eden, deposed to skinning the calf on the following day. He found no blemish or marks under the skin as if a whip had been used. If the caroase had been kept longer it would have been putrid. Samuel Finch, farmer, Mount Albert, and Thomas Paton, farmer, in the same district, were also called. The latter had known the defendant since he was a boy. He was a neighbour, and did not think he would ill-treat an animal. The Bench, in giving their decision, Baid it was not a case which called for the imposition of a heavy fine. Fined 20s and costs, which amounted to £6 3s.