LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7922, 14 April 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.Divorce. Wednesday. " [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Ward.] Wm. Henry Modlden, Petitioner, and Grade Moolden, Respondent, and Edward Corbktt and James Young, Corespondents.—Mr. E. Hesketb moved for a rule nisi on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Theo, Cooper appeared on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Hesketb in moving for the rule said he did so on the following grounds; The suit was for a dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on the grounds of adultery com* mitted with the two co ■ respondents. , The cause was tried first in 1884, and certain questions of fact were submitted to the jury, who found that tin respondent had committed ~ adultery with both corespondents. Subsequently a new trial was applied for, and this was granted, and the case was again tried in January, 1885, and the same facts were submitted to the jury, and resulted in a similar verdict, and he now moved for the rale nisi for the dissolution of the marriage. Mr. Cooper said that he did not oppose the application, but did not consent to it. The rule nisi was granted, with costs, againit the co respondents, Corbett and Young. Mr. Cooper said there was one child , of the marriage, and he did not think Mr. Hesketh would oppose the custody of the child being left to the mother. His Honor suggested that he had perhaps better not ask for an order, and it would not be required, as the father did not want the child, but to make an order granting the ouetody of the child to an adulterous mother would toe very unusual. Drusilla Annie Gordon, Petitioner; James Gordon, Respondent.— Mr. Lush I appeared for the petitioner, and moved for a decree nisi on the grounds of the adultery of the respondent and cruelty and desertion. There was no appearance entered by the respondent. Mr. Lush stated the facts of the case, and called the petitioner, who deposed that she resided at the Thames. The respondent was her husband, and she produced the certificate of her marriage, and identified the photograph produced as that of the respondent. They were married at the residence of the Rev. Mr. Cornford, threat North Road, and remained in Auckland for about a fortnight, and then went to reside at Maramarua, near Mercer, where they lived for about a year and a half. During that time Gordon irequently treated her very unkindly. They then went to live at the Thames, and he continued to treat her with great unkindoess; and in February, 1877, owing to a blow which she received from him, she gave birth to a stillborn child. ' She felt unwell and refused to clean his boots, and he kicked her in the stomach, and she remarked to him, "You've done it now." After ho went out she went to call a neighbour's assistance, but she fainted on the road. She knew nothing more until she was taken home, and ten days afterwards she gave birth to a stillborn child. Shortly after this her husband was arrested for indecent assault, and he was convicted "and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. This was in April, 1877, and he had not resided with her since, He was released in two years and seven months, and she saw him then. He came to the house to see the children, and ho asked how they were. Their conversation was civil, but cool. On the second occasion he came, he said, " I suppose we shan't live together any more," and she gathered from what he said that he did not wish to do so. He came back three or four times to see the children. She would not have objected to Gordon coming back to reside with her if he reformed. Since he came out of Mount Eden Gordon lived mostly in the Upper Thames district—Te Aroha. About a year ago she met Gordon at the Thames, and accused him of being the father of a child in an affiliation case with Miss Agnew, and she afterwards accused him of being the father of Miss Cook's child, and Matilda Morgan's child, and he said he did not deny the latter, aDd he said it seemed to him that he was to be the father of all the children born. Her husband took three out of four of her children away, and for four years afterwards she never saw them, although he was to have brought them back in the evening, but she applied to the Court, and brought pressure to bear on him, and he allowed her to get them back, and since then she had supported the children, clothed them, and sent them to school. She had not brought this petition before because she bad not the means. For the last ten years she supported herself and children by working for a draper at the Thames. Defective Herbert gave evidenoe as to being present at the Thames Court during the bearing of a case brought by Jane AgDew against Gordon for the support of her illegitimate child. He admitted having had intercourse with the plaintiff. An order was made by Mr. Kenrick, the magistrate, for payment of 12s 6'i per week. There was no further evidence called, and His. Honor granted the rule nisi for the dissolution of the marriage, with costs against the respondent, and granted the custody of the children to the petitioner, aud also gavfl an order against the respondent for the sustenance of the children, POLICE COURT.—Wednesday. [Before Messrs. W. McCa'lough and E. Isaacs, J.P.'S.] Vagrancy. — Rose Jones, Mary Ellen Keonan, and Elizabeth Johnston were charged with having no visible lawful means of support. Detective Herbert deposed to arresting the girls going down Chancery .Lane. Jones was drunk, and the others were inisoonducting themselves. Numerous complaints had been made against them. The father of Jones had asked the police to have her arrested and fined. The mother of Keenan said her daughter had a situation, and the Bench offered to send the girl home if abe would promise to reform. When asked to do so, she made no reply. Johnston was also asked the same question, but would not reply. The Bench sentenced Jones to one month's imprisonment, as she appeared to be the leader of the others. The other two were discharged, as Sergeant Pratt had promised to keep a sharp eye on them, and if they came up before the Bench again they would be severely dealt ; with. Gaming and Lotteries Howard Osborne was charged with a breach of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, by establishing a lottery at the Ellerslie races last Monday. Mr. Williamson appeared, instructed by the police, for the prosecution, and Mr. Cotter for the defence. Mr. Cotter stated that de- ! fendanfc came from Queensland about a month j ago, and he did not know he was committing i a breach of the Act. He had advised his olient to plead guilty, and he asked the Bench to inflict a nominal penalty as defendant was only technically guilty. Mr. Williamson said the game was almost exactly like the totalisator, and the profits defendant appeared to have made were enormous. Mr. Cotter stated that defendant deducted 6d from every 2s 6d ticket, and his client had been in the habit of carrying on the same game in Queensland. The only difference between defendant's game and the totalisator was that the latter deduoted 10 per cent, and the former 20 per cent. Detective Hughes deposed to sveing defendant at the races on Monday last. Me was shouting out, offering to sell tickets for the races. In the last race he had sold 46 tiokets ; Lady Norah won the last race, and there were 21 investors on her. Defendant paid the investors on Lady Norah 4s 6d dividend, that is 20 per cent, commission. There was a similar sum on each race during the day. Defendant was standing on a box, and wrote the names of investors in a book (produced). Witness charged him with a breach of the Act, and the stewards of the races had asked him (witness) to prosecute. There was no swindling in the .affair; it was simply a breach of the Act. Mr. Cotter stated that on counting up the investors recorded in the book, and deducting 6d commission, he found that his client ; had made' £7 on the occasion. The Bench, taking into ' consideration the evidence of the police, and Mr. Cotter's statement, were not disposed to impose a heavy sentence, and fined him £2 and costs. Wandering Cows.—William Philcox was charged with allowing two cows to wander in Clarence-street, Devonport. 'Constable O'B.wen, stationed at Devonport, deposed to seeing the cows wander. The Bench fined defendant 5s and coats.—James Willetts, Eleanor Williams, Thomas Vaughan, and Thomas Clrttbb were each fined 5s and costs for similar ■offences.Robert Wynj'ard, who did not appear, was fined 7s 6d and costs. Assault. —Christopher Greenway was charged with unlawfully assaulting Kernot, a boy of seven ytars. son of Peter Kernot, by striking him with a stick. Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr. E. Cooper appeared for the prosecution, and stated that the boy was playing with soma others in the road, in

front of Mr. Greenway'e house when Mrs. Greenway asked htm to take soma. figs to a neighbour, and promised 'to give him some for himself if he did so, 'He took the figs, and on coming out of the houao with his own share, defendant met him and •beat him severely. Mrs. Qreenway, who was present, protested that this was not true, and said the boy had stolen the figs, Mr. E. Cooper said that even if he had stolen the figs, the punishment was a most cruel one, and he would ask the Bench to inflict a heavy penalty. It was not the first time defendant had been before the Court for using his stick. The Bench eleoted to hear some evidence, and Mr. Cooper called James Kernot, a lad of 13 years, who deposed that his brother was called by Mrs. Greenway to take soma figs to a neighbour,, and she promised to give him some for. himself. He . took the figs, and when, he came for his own, old Greenway bs*t him with an oaken stick. Witness was cross* examined by Mr. Greenway, in a very absurd manner, until the Bench lost patience and ordered the witness to stand down. Elizabeth Clark deposed to seeing the boy coming out of Greenway's gate with some figs in hia hat. Greenway asked him where he got the figs, and he said he had got them from Mrs. Greenway, Mr Gway then beat the boy severely. Mrs Greanway came out and picked up the lad's figs and gave them to him again. She admitted giving the figs to the boy. 'Dr. Evans deposed to examine ing the lad and finding bruises on the boy's shoulders and arms. This was the evidence for the prosecution. Mrs. Greenway was sworn, and proceeded to make a long statement about it being a ' " regular made up affair," when she was stopped by the Bench, and told to simply answer questions put to her. "You sent the boy with the figs?" "No, I did not," "Did you send any other boy?" "Not" la the morning early a boy came, and said that Mrs. Burns, a neighbour, wanted some figs for a dying son, and she sent some. After this she went upstairs, saw four boys stand' ing at the gate, and then she heard a noise. She came down and found a crowd there* and heard people calling her husband a '• d d wretch," but she did not Bee him hit the boy at all. "Did you not give a boy figs in the morning 1" "No, a boy came from Mrs. Burns for figs, but she never gave this boy auy. She never put the figa in the lad's hat again after her husband beat him. " It was a regular made up affair altogether. 1 To Mr. Cooper : She did not see Mrs. Clark there, and had not said a word to her about the figs, nor to anyone else. Mr. Cooper asked if the stick her husband usually carried was not a heavier one than that which he had in Court. "That's the stick he had that day." "Does he generally oarry that stick ?'' That's the stick he had that day." And so on for about five minutes. Mr, Cooper ultimately gave up questioning in disgust. The Benoh said Mr. Greenway Knew very well that he had no right to take the law into his own hands. Mr. Greenway replied: "It was on my own premises, and he was taking away my fruit." The, Bench said he may have bad provocation, but still he had no right to do as he did. The law laid down the proper course for him to take. They would fine him £2 and coats, £4 10s. Mr. Cooper applied, under the 189 th section of the Justioes of the Peace Act, for half the fine to be paid to the parents of the child to recoup the medical expenses. The Bench, however, did not grant the application.