LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9129, 10 August 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

DIVORCE COURT.— Thursday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.

Humphreys v. Humphreys and others. —Thomas Mace Humphreys, petitioner, asked for a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage, on the grounds of the respondent's (Rosina Ann Mace Humphreys) adultery with John Kerr, FrankMatson, and Charles Fuller. The case had been heard at the last sitting of the Court, and His Honor now delivered judgment as follows : —" I have given the evidence in this case a great deal of consideration, and have had great difficulty in coming to a conclusion in the matter, more especially from the facts that the respondent, although served, has not put in an appearance, and that none of the co-respondents have been served. Nevertheless, upon the evidence adduced, I feel constrained to grant the petitioner the relief sought. The evidence is strong that on board ship the co-respondent Matson established terms of great intimacy with the respondent, but not by any means suggesting impropriety. But when, after landing, this intimacy led in an hotel to the respondent leaving her husband's bed early in the morning without his knowledge, and being found in lier dressing gown at least a quarter of an hour after in the co-respondent's! bedroom, with the door locked and he in bed, and that she leaves her girdle behind her on the bed, I think the conclusion inevitable. But these facts, known to the petitioner, were clearly and admittedly condoned, he, simple-minded man, accepting the assurance of the guilty parties, without taking any guarantee for the non-recurrence of such a suspicious conjunction of circumstances. But it is proved that a few days after, on the occasion of the removal of the petitioner and respondent from the hotel to private lodgings, the co respondent Matson accompanied the respondent to the lodgings, and, upon pretext of assisting her to open boxes, goes with her to her bedroom, and there remains for an hour with the door locked, and the respondent, when remonstrated with by the landlady, explains that the co-respondent has had a fit. Yes, of what? The previous occurrence so easily condoned explains. Notwithstanding, therefora, his condonation of the first patent oirence, I feel satisfied that the second unknown, and therefore uncondoned, offence was committed, and therefore in accordance with the authorities (which I need not quote), the condonation was set aside and the first offence rendered available in this suit, although not specially charged, and therefore that upon both the lirsfc and the second charges the petitioner is entitled to relief. I cannot, however, acquit the petitioner of a great amount of laxity, but not amounting to connivance, in regard to his wife. The incident of the Star Hotel, even if he condoned it, ought to have made him more careful in future as to leaving his wife unprotected. As to the charges against her with Kerr and Fuller, they are not proved. As to Fuller, his conduct, looking to the previous career of the respondent, is no doubt very suspicious, although in reference to an ordinary unsuspected woman it would not be so. But the evidence is certainly not sufficient to establish any criminal intercourse on his part. The judgment of the Court will therefore be that the respondent and the co-respon-dent Matson were guilty of adultery, but dismiss the petition as against Kerr and Fuller. Decree nm.

Edward Camptox (Petitioner), Jessre Brown Hakdy Campton (Respondent), and Hans Peter Christian M. Hansen (Co-respondent). —This was an application to make a decree nisi for the dissolution of marriage absolute. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared in support of the motion. The trial took place on the 4th of April, when the decree was granted, with leave to apply to make it absolute at the expiration of three months. The order was granted making the decree absolute. Wμ. Henderson* (Petitioner), Mary Catherine Henderson (Respondent), and George Dunklin (Co-respondent).—This was a motion for a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of the wife's adultery with the co-respondent. Mr. Hudson Williamson appeared in support of the motion. The respondent and co-re-spondent had entered an appearance, but filed no defence, and did not now appear. The petitioner (Win. Henderson) deposed that he was a general dealer, and was married in Kaikoura to Mary Catherine Devine, where they lived for some time, and then went to 'Wellington, whence they came to Auckland in ISS4. There was one issue of the marriage, a little boy, born 12 months after the marriage. Witness was in charge of a scoria pit for Mr. Craig for about 14 months, until the Government closed it, and then was in Vaile and Bradley's auction mart until they failed, and he then commenced business on his own account in 18SB as a general dealer in the market. He resided in Elliott-street, His business was a pretty successful one latterly, and he was making £8 to £10 a week. tJp to this time his wife had lived with him continuously, and they never had any trouble that would, interfere with anyone outside themselves, and they had a com fortable home. The child lived with them. In October, 1886, on two occasions, he found Dunklin talking to his wife at the back door. Tie told her it did not look well, and she Hew in a temper, and said she would talk to whom she liked. He had previously known Dunklin by sight. He claimed to be a butcher, but witness never saw him do anything but hawking about the street. He lived about two doors from witness' back door, in a right-of-way, and was apparently a single man, and had never been in witness' house to his knowledge. He had seen them talking three or four times, and he cautioned his wife that it did nob look well. On Saturday, "23rd October, he was in the market until evening, and when at six o'clock he went to his house the door was open, and she and the child were gone. The back door was open, and the pots and pans were thrown about in the yard, but there was no one about. He made inquiries, but all he could learn was that a dray had been to the house, and he missed some bed linen. He reported the matter to the police. He .heard in the middle of the followin" week that she had been seen in town, 0 and he had her followed to Newmarket. He then went to the police and crot a search warrant, after which he went to Newmarket with Detective Walker. They found the house in Market-street, Newmarket, and saw his wife there, and Dunklin, and tho boy. This was about eight o'clock in the evening. Witness stood outside, and Walker went in and searched the place. On Detective Walker's advice he did not take the boy that night, and witness did not make it known that he was there. Witness never had any conversation with her afterwards, but she came to his place of business on Saturday nights, and annoyed him to such an extent that he had to give up his business sooner than he otherwise .would have done. He left for Canada on the 6th of December, and returned in May. Before he left he had not the means of commencing these proceedings, and had only sufficient to pay the passage of his boy and himself. He got possession of the boy by picking him up in the street at the end of November, and he had him now placed in school in California. Since his return he had seen his wife, but had not spoken to her. In reply to his Honour, witness said he had no suspicion of there being anything wrong between his wife and Dunklin, although he thought her foolish for speaking to him. Wni, Ward, hawker, Grey-street, deposed that in ISS6 he lived with Dunklin at the back of Mr. Henderson's place. Dunklin left towards the end of 1880. He told witness he was going to buy some furniture, and live at Newmarket, where he said he had a job on the tram line. He said he was going to take Mrs. Henderson out there to five "together. Subsequently some days after that witness had a cup of tea with them at Newmarket. He subsequently, about two or three months afterwards, visited them in Karangahape Road, where they were livin" together, and had tea with them. He knew Mr. Henderson to be a hard - working, sober, industrious man, and he never saw him treat his wife unkindly, and everything was in the house necessary for a working mans wife and he never heard them quarrelling. (While this witness was being examined Mrs. Henderson came into Court, and was identified by the witness and the petitioner.) Henry Clark, chimney sweeper, Newton, deposed that he raided in the end of 1886 near the Bank of New Zealand, Karangahape Road, and cleaned a chimney for Dunklin at Newmarket. He saw there Mr? Henderson, Mr. Dunklin, and the boy They were living together, and they subsequently came to live at witness's

house in Newton. Dunklin lived with witness a fortnight before Mrs. Henderson came, and the arrangement was that she ■was to occupy the front room, and Dunklin sleep in the kitchen. Dunklin brought an iron bedstead, a spring mattress, and a couch for the boy. A bed was prepared for Dunklin in the kitchen, and witness and his wife went for a walk, returning home at nine in the evening, and found that Dunklin and Mrs. Henderson were both in bed in the front room. He did not see them, but he heard them talking, and he missed the couch out of the kitchen. In the morning he told Dunklin he would have to find another place, and he said he would as soon as he could. He objected to their cohabiting in his house, but they remained for three or four weeks, and occupied the room together, Dunklin paying for the accommodation. Witness was taken to the Hospital, and remained there for seven weeks, and when he came out he went to where Duiiklin and Mrs. Henderson lived, in East-street, for a pillow. He saw Mrs. Henderson then, but not Dunklin. Mary Jane Clark, wife of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence, and Constable Clarke, stationed at Newton, gave evidence as to the respondent and co-respondent living in Newton as man and wife. His Honor said the evidence of adultery was very clear, and there could be no suggestion of connivance or collusion. The decree 7ii-si was granted, and the custody of the child was given to the petitioner, the rule nisi to be made absolute at the expiration of three months.

The Court then adjourned until 10 o'clock next morning.

R.M. COURT.— Thursday. [Before Dr. Giles, E.M.]

Judgment for Plaintiffs.—ln the following undefended cases judgment was fiven for the plaintiffs :—Arthur T. Eyre v. . McFadden, £9 5s 2d, costs trustees in the estate of Hunter and Nolan v. Auckland Tallow and Manure Manufacturing Company, £11 18s 6d, costs £2 17s; J. Petford v. J. Compton, £3 17s 6d, costs 17s 6d ; Macky, Logan, Steen, and Co. v. James Hart, £60 8s 2d, costs £5 4s ; Frederick Ledger v. J. Mahoney, £6 7s 6d, costs 10s ; Bull and Hare v. W. Soper, £3 14s 2d, costs £1 9s 6d ; R. and W. Hellaby v. W. Clarke, £7 12s, costs £2 4s ; trustees in the estate of Hunter and Noiau v. Board, £2 0s 4d, costs 16s 6d; R. S-ow v. E. Hughes, £3 ss, costs 16s 6d; J'ew Zealand Bottling Co. v. W. Stead, £4 8s 3d, costa 16s 6d ; Moir and Co. v. McKeo.vn, £8 10s (by consent), costs lls ; J. Boyle v. H. Elliott, £2 10s, costs 16s 6d ; C. S. S. George v. C. H. Brockelbank, £6, costs £2 7s; R. C. Carr and another v. C. R. Gore, £2 6s, costs £1 0s 6d; Hesketh and Aitken v. W. Vince, £6 2s, costs £1 12s ; M. Palmer v. E. Lynch, £2 7s 3d, costs 6s ; W. E. Payne (Auckland City Council), v. W. J. Massey, £2 9s, costs 6s; W. E. Payne v. J. B. Massey, £2 17s 2d, costs 6s ; W. E. Payne v. John Scott, jun., £1 0s 10d, costs 6s ; W. E. Payne v. H. Phillips, £4 Is Bd, oosta 6s ; W. E. Payne v. A. J. Lindsay, £2 0a 10d, costs 6s. R. Jknkinsox v. the A.M.P. Society.— Claim £61, for work in connection with the placing of a group of statuary on the business premises of the defendant company at the of Queen and Victoria-streets. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Hesketh for the defendants. Mr. Cooper, in opening the case, said that £27 10s had been paid into Court by the defendants. Robert. Jenkinson, the plaintiff, deposed that he tendered for the placing of an emblematic group of figures on the buildings of the Australian Mutual Provident Society, at the corner of Queen and Victoria streets, and he also tendered for lettering at the base of the statuary, also for the columns at the front door. Witness had been led to believe by Mr. Burrows that the base to receive the figures was correct. When the work was proceeded with it was found necessary to strengthen the building; there was an ugly crack on one side, and certain ironwork was done to strengthen the building, the cost of this having been paid into Court. He placed the outside figures into the base first, the centre figure being of a wedge shape. He then measured for the centre figure, and found there was not space enough to receive them. The architect had told him to keep to a certain line, and had led him to suppose that there was plenty of room ; and when it was found the centre figure would not fit, it was proposed to set the other? back. Mr. Burrows afterwards gave instructions, and the centre figure was then placed in position, the others having been swung out. The base was discovered to be too small, and it had to be filled out with cement, and a portion cut away in another place. Witness's solicitors wrote a letter to Mr. Burrows, asking for written instructions in the matter, and these instructions did not come to hand until ten days afterwards, witness having during the intervening time had to pay wages to men, whilst the delay also caused the loss of the sale of the timber used in the scaffolding. Hugh Davis also gave evidence. The evidence for the defence proved that the specifications provided for the extension of the base, if it was found necessary, though it was anticipated that the measurements would be found correct. P. F. M. Burrows, architect, was examined, and deposed that the written instructions asked for by the contractor were not necessary. W. Mitchell and C. Hemery also gave evidence, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court, and costs to the defendant.

OPUNAKE R.M. COURT. A sitting of the above court was held on July 17. E. G. Rawson, Esq., Major Luke, and F. M. Chapman, J.P., were on the Bench, and disposed of the following business :— D. F. Greenway, of Okato. was charged on the information of Honi Ropata, of Puneho, on June 11, by seizing hold of the said Honi Ropata by the beard and causing him much pain. Mr. Welsh appeared for the informant. Mr. E. Blake was sworn interpreter. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The informant, who is a blind Maori, deposed that he had some business with defendant. He went to his place. The defendant was not agreeable about the terms agreed upon, and got out of temper, and called his dog to set on him. The dog did not come. He then beat the informant's horse, causing the horse to jump about, dragging witness over the pole of the express and getting away. The defendant then pulled his whiskers, pulling some out, causing him pain. The defendant used a lot of abusive language. Informant's wife cried out to Teoti, who came. The defendant then let him go. Teoti went and caught his horse. He was very much afraid of defendant), fearing that he would injure him. Witness was quite blind, and sought the court's protection. By defendant : He lived at Puneho ; had lived at Hawera before. Had land claims at Puneho and Hawera. Had been to defendant's house several times. This was the first trouble between them. He had ahorse and his wife with him this time. His wife informed him the brake was inside. No one asked him to go away and not make any disturbance. No one asked to help the horse off the pole. The defendant caused his horse to get into that position. He did not sit nor stand on the pole of the express, and did not hear anyone say he had broken the pole. He was blind. He did not break the pole. Defendant was beating the horse at the time. By the Court: Defendant was aware that the prosecutor is blind. He had been blind about four years. The witness led his horse into defendant's place. Te Aro, wife of prosecutor, and Teoti gave evidence to the same effect. Defendant deposed that on the day the alleged assault took place both came to his place. They seid they wanted nothing. The woman seemed to be looking at the express. The man had a horse with him. Witness said he had no business with a horse if he could not see. He replied he was capable of managing a horse. Witness told him to go away, being too busy to be troubled with him. Plaintiff said he would go when he was ready. They came to take away the express. Witness told him to take care what he was doing. Witness did not; acknowledge him in the matter. Plaintiff said he came to put me in gaol, also using obscene and abusive language. Witness told him he was in danger with the horses. He had better keep clear of them, and if he would not witness would drive the horse away. Witness struck the horse on the hip to frighten him away, as there might have been damage done. Plaintiff went and broke the pole of the express deliberately. He poked his head into the express, and had a knife in his hand. Witness told him not to cut the harness. The woman erob up into

the express. Teoti could not have seen the affair. The express belonged to the woman, and witness kept it for security. The harness also belonged to the woman. The Bench : What did the informant want to cut his own harness for? Witness did nob know, except for him to put in a claim for repair. William Greenway, aged 17, and George Greenway, aged 12, gave evidence corroborating the defendant's evidence. The court retired, and on resuming, Mr. Rawson addressed the defendant, saying : The court is satisfied that you have been guilty of a most unjustifiable and brutal assault, and that you ought to be ashamed of such conduct to a man who is stone blind. You will be fined. 12s and costs ; counsel, £2 2s ; interpreter, £1 10s ; 2 Maori men, 10s each, £1 ; Maori woman, 9s ; court, 7s : total, £6. Wilful Damagk to Property.—An information was laid by D. F. Greenway against Honi Ropata that he did unlawfully and wilfully damage certain property of the informant, to the value of 12s. After hearing the case, it was not proven to be the property of the informant. Information dismissed with costs, £2. Opitnake Town Board v. O'Neil.— Rates, 4s. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, 13s. Michael Dillox v. Whataroa. —Claim, £8 14s 6d. Mr. Welsh for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for £4 15s and 14s costs.

S. A. Breach v. John Stevenson and Co.—Claim, £37 9s, for 6421b of butter ab Is 2d per lb. The plaintiff stated that in April last he made arrangements with Mr. J. Stevenson and Co. to separate his milk at their factory with their milk, he to receive proportionate anaounts from time to time, and to pay |d per lb of butter, covering all expenses. Mr. Stevenson had sold his butter for 9d per lb. He drew butter, but no accouno was furnished until June, showing a balance in his favour up to the end of May for 6421b. Since then aa amended account had been furnished, the defendants deducting 1751b for loss in working, &c. On the 14th June, witness made application for his butter, 6421b made in May according to their showing ; during June they gave him 6421b ; had been receiving Is 2d per lb for butter in New Plymouth, the company charging S per cent, for washing, &c. Mr. Breach said butter did not deteriorate in working and salting. If the Bench would come up to his place in the morning he would show them that there was not any waste, but about 4 per cenb. gain. He would weigh the butter out of the churn, put it all through the worker, and for 96ib of butter from the churn he would have 1001b in the keg. He was quite prepared to let the decision go on the result. Deducting 5, 7, or 8 per cent, for buttermilk, &c, was only a custom, not a fact, for with the salt that is added it will gain. Mr. Newman was called, saying they bought a large quantity of butter in lumps and washed it, and deducted 5 percent, for losses. He had never weighed the buttermilk. New Plymouth buyers charge 7 per cent. He believed it deteriorated more than 5 per cent. He had given Is during June. Separator butter was worth Id perlb more than private make. Charles McHardy, chairman and secretary, said he had made 7 per cent, loss on butter. The butter showed nearly 8 per cent. Mr. Breach, said he had 'tested 96£lb of butter, and made 1001b, giving a surplus of 3£ percent. Putting salt at the bottom and top of the butter in the keg would make a surplus. Mr. Crowther deposed that he was a large buyer of butter in lumps from farmers, and charged them 5 per cent, for loss. It did. not loose more than 2 per cent, if put in the keg immediately after working, but if i<j were put through the worker, and kepto until next day, and put through again, ib would lose another 3 per cent. Factory butter did not lose as much as private make. Mr. Breach said butter was nob ' worked over the second time, and he was prepared to lose this case if it was not as he had stated. The Bench gave judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to Is Ofd per lb for the butter, which had been sold by the defendants' neglect, but a deduction of 5 per cent, would be allowed, which would leave 5151b, to be paid for at Is o|d per lb s ; total, £30 Is 6d, and £2 Is costs. The Court adjourned until the following morning, as the hall was required for an entertainment and dance.—[Rahotu Cor» respondent.]