HUSBAND AND WIFE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9103, 11 July 1888, Page 6

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

At the Police Court yesterday, before Dr. Giles, Resident Magistrate, George John Basten was charged with having, since June 1, neglected to support his three children. Mr. T. Cotter appeared on behalf of the complainant, and Mr. Napier for the defendant, who pleaded "Not guilty." In opening the case, Mr. Cotter read section 16 of the Destitute Persons Act, 1867, which read after the ordinary preamble, that a justice should issue a summons to the defendant to " show cause" why he should not support the wife or children. The Resident Magistrate said a primary case should be shown. Mr. Cotter then briefly outlined the case, saying that the complainant had for some time been trying to maintain herself and children by keeping a boardinghouse. Some years ago the defendant owned a considerable amount of property, subject to mortgages. He made over the property to his wife, subject to the mortgages. The complainant had since then managed these properties, and maintained her home and children. Property had deteriorated, and the complainant found herself in a position that the income from the property did not pay the interest upon the mortgages. The defendant had two months ago filed his petition in the Bankruptcy Court, and the furniture in the boardinghouse belonging to him had been levied on, and the Official Assignee now held the furniture, and the complainant had become destitute. , v Rachael Basten deposed that she was the wife of the defendant, and had had three children, girls, ages 12, 10, and 7 years. About seven years ago her husband made over his property to ner, but ib was then under heavy mortgage. Since that time she had been supporting herself, her husband, and her children. Since that time the value of the property decreased about two-thirds, and her income had decreased from some £3 to 255, and the income was not now enough to pay the interest. In the beginning of June her husband filed his petition in bankruptcy, and the Official Assignee had levied on the furniture in the house. Her husband had left the house, and, had not contributed to her support. He was a coachbuilder, and considered himself one of the best workmen in Auckland. She had been keeping a boardinghouse, but this business had collapsed. She had but the one boarder, and one room let. She was unable to support her children and the house. In cross-examination Mrs. Basten said she was maintaining her children on credit. The children had not sufficient clothing. The house was Belmont House, Vincent-street. T. ere were thirty rooms in the house. When the property was made over to her there were mortgages of £700 upon one, and £225 upon the other. The mortgages had been increased to build extra rooms, and to pay her tradespeople. Many of the rooms were unfurnished, and there had never been any income from these. Witness said in July, 1887, she obtained a protection order, and she had the custody of the children. Since July, 1887, her husband had been living in the house, but witness had not given him any food. Witness had not kicked her husband, and so caused him to be ruptured. She also denied that she had thrown bottles, buckets of water, knives, and other things at him. He gave up coach-building seven years ago. Belmont House originally consisted of five rooms ; now it had 30, and witness had paid for all these. Her husband had compelled her to do it. Witness had never threatened to murder him. She had not for the last two years beaten, bruised, or in any way insulted her husband. She had thrown water over her husband.

At this stage, as Mr. Napier asked his questions, the witness snapped out a series of "No, no, no," concluding the series by an exclamation of, "Dry up. Don't ask me such disgusting questions, and insult me by saying such things." Cross-examination continued : The mortgagee of the property had threatened to close. There had been a meeting of her tradesmen creditors, who had expressed themselves desirous that the boardinghouse business should be kept on, and would have done so if her husband had done his duty. The witness here broke out into angry exclamations, asking, "Do you want to force me on other men ? I will not support the children under any circumstances. ' The Resident Magistrate ordered her to answer the questions properly. Some further questioning ensued, when the Resident Magistrate asked if the complainant had a protection order, whether the application could be made. Mr. Cotter pointed out that the complainant asked for an order for the support of the children, and the object of the action was to decide who should maintain the children.

The Resident Magistrate said the case appeared to be more complicated than he had at first supposed, and he would hear the case further.

The cross-examination then proceeded. Witness had six months ago obtained a permit to build additions to her property. Since then, on the advice of the mortgagee, this permit had been transferred to her brother. This was the complainant's case. Mr. Napier, for the defendant, submitted that there was no case to answer, as the complainant was a married woman with a protection order. Mr. Napier then read section 9 of the Act, alleging that where an order had been got an application could not be made under the Destitute Persons Act, the Married Woman's Property Protection Act, 1880, overriding it, and the Destitute Persons Act for 1877, and the children, being all females, were in the custody of the wife.

Mr. Cotter replied that there was no proof of the substitution or over-riding of the one Act by the other, but also the Act made provision for certain variations, and there was no clause in the later Act that said that where the children were females, tha*-. the wife should support them solely. It said " custody," but not " support." Mr. Napier replied that the complainant had her choice, and she had elected to tako one of the two courses, and having done so, she must abide by it, and could not fall back upon the other Act. The Resident Magistrate said the point was one of importance, and he would not like to decide it hastily. He would rather, therefore, hear the evidence for the defence.

Mr. Napier stated the case for the defence, saying that some years ago Basten was a mechanic, doing fairly well, and get ting property,' but his wife was continually nagging at him, and made his life miserable by her fault-finding. During this state of things the complainant that if her husband should make over half of the property to her, she would be a good wife to him. He did so, but the old state of things soon began again, and again the wife asked him to make over the rest of the property to her. For the sake of peace he agreed to do this. At this time the property was bringing in £150 a-year, and in addition to this, there grew up in Belmont House a flourishing boarding-house business, so much so that all the rooms were filled, and new rooms had to be erected. The complainant, seven years ago, also induced her husband to give up his coachbuilding business, and come to the house, and manage accounts. After awhile the wife began to abuse him by throwing various articles at kettles, cups, bottles, knives, water, etc. She had also kicked him, and caused him a severe rupture, which had incapacitated him, from his trade. Some time ago also his wife got a protection order against her husband, and from that time the defendant had been living a cat-and-dog life. He had been refused all food In the house, and had been maintained to a great extent by his friends. He had been compelled to file his petition in bankruptcy, and the consequence of this was that Basten was absolutely destitute, and his meals were being paid for by his brother. All this had come about by Mrs. Basten's ungovernable conduct. She had maltreated , her husband in such a way that Mr. Napier could only fitly describe as " shocking. ' ; The defendant, George John Basten, was then called, but Mr. Cotter suggested that it was not necessary to go into the whole of the statements made by Mr. Napier. The Resident Magistrate thought not. Mr. Napier said, of course, if it was admitted, to which Mr. Cotter demurred.

The defendant then deposed that about six years ago he left his work to come home. He removed- the building lower down, so a* to put on two better buildings in front. • He did nearly all the work. He made over his property. Previous to this, he had mortgaged his properties to purchase property of Captain Casey. Mrs. Baste*h took the income of the boarding-

; > Mr. Napier was proceeding to ask as to the state of things existing between defendant and his wife, but the R.M. decided it was unnecessary. He stated that some six months ago he was advised to file his petition in bankruptcy. He had been to the house once, but had been accosted by his wife and knocked down by his wife's brother. . Since then he had been living outside the house with a friend. He was suffering from a rupture caused by a kick from his wife, and was unable to do any work. He had tried to get work since the filing of his petition in bankruptcy, but had been unable to get it, and had only earned £3 during the last 12 months. His wife and her brother had also refused to give him his tools. He had also been unable to get his furniture. In cross-exami-nation witness said he wanted furniture for one room. He named a number of persons and firms he had applied to for work. The Resident Magistrate dismissed the case, saying the man was evidently unable to obey the order if it was made. It was, he said, unnecessary to deoide the point of law raised by Mr. Napier, but he rather leaned towards it.