GRAFTON ROAD SHOOTING AFFRAY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12269, 13 May 1903, Page 7

GRAFTON ROAD SHOOTING AFFRAY.

SEQUEL IN THE POLICE COURT.

DOMESTIC INFELICITY.

A SEPARATION BY CONSENT.

A sequel to the shooting affray in Grafton Road, reported in the Herald on April 28, which resulted in an. elderly man named Robert Davidson being sent to the hospital suffering from a slight wound in the head inflicted by a bullet from a revolver fired at him by his son, Win. John Davidson, was heard in the Police Court yesterday. Mr. H. VV. Brabant, S.M., was on the Bench. Mrs. Eliza Davidson applied for a separation ordei against her husband, Robert Davidson, alleging in support persistent cruelty. Ihe defendant, for whom Mr. J. R. Reed appeared, had his head bound up in bandages.

Mr. 1. E. Baumo appeared fo» the complainant, and in his opening remarks stated that the case was a somewhat sad one. The parties had boon married about 24 years, the first part of their married life being happy. Latterly, however, it was alleged that defendant had been persistently cruel to his wife, and that he was a man of violent temper, or those reasons complainant declared that it was impossible to continue living with defendant. Mr. Baume said the allegations amounted to a terrible case of ill-treatment, neglect and violonce. | Eliza Davidson, the complainant, stated that she had two sons (23 and 20 years old respectively). During the past six months her husband had shown her nothing but cruelty, and repeatedly used violent language. Defendant on one occasion took his own food and threw that of his family beneath the table, saying, "This is enough for pigs." He had struck witness with his fist on more than one occasion, and had thrown things at her. He was the terror of her life. Defendant would come in half-drunk and smash everything in the house. He used to keep a large knife hanging at the head of the bed, saying he would "do for" the whole lot of them, and for the first person who came into the house. On the evening of last Saturday week (April 25) defendant came homo drunk, and smashed everything in the house. On the Sunday he wanted to make it up with her, but she- refused. Again on the Monday he asked her to make it up, but she still refused. He then struck her on the back of the neck with his fist, and "blackened and blued" her all over. He beat her well, and then put her outside. Defendant had never given witness any money. Her sons gave her £1 17s per week between them, and on this she kept the house. Defendant had been living on her. To Mr. Keed: The house was defendant's, but witness paid all the food bills. Her husband paid for some of witness' clothes " when he took the fit into his head." For 18 years witness had kept the house by doing laundry work, and she had given defendant money to put away. That had helped tc purchase the house. Witness bought more than- half the furniture herself, and her eldest boy bought a good few things. AH defendant bought was a washstand, a look-ing-glass and bed. On the occasion when defendant struck her on the back of the neck witness turned and hit him with the poker on the shoulder. He then gave he v a " good hammering," and put her out. Witness went in again, and sung out for help. Het elder son then came downstairs, and there was a scuffle between him and defendant. Witness heard a revolver fired, but did not see her son fire it. She knew defendant was wounded in the head and sent to the hospital. Witness did not go there to see how he was getting on, and she had the summons in this case served upon him whilst he was under treatment there. She did noi Care whether defendant was alive or dead, she was so " full up" of his treatment oi her. Whilst her nUsband was in the hospital witness and her sons left their house, taking some of the furniture. Andrew Davidson, younger son of the parties, stated that during the past six months defendant had been " very quarrelsome indeed," and on two occasions he had beat complainant. It was a common occurrence for defendant to use filthy language to witness' mother. He had heard him threaten to stick her with a knife, and had seen him beatjier with a small stick. Mary Stillwell, next-door neighbour of the parties in Grafton Road, deposed to hearing defendant use violent swearing. On one occasion complainant came running to witness' house in a very much frightened condition, and with only one shoe on. Defendant at the time was yelling and screaming, and complainant was afraid to stay in her own house. '

Carrie Stillwell, daughter of the last witness, stated that she had heard defendant using very violent language to complainant about two months ago. She had heard frequent breaking of glass in the Davidsons

house. Mr. Reed submitted that the Complainant had made out no case, and that evidence oi something more than had been given was necessary to constitute persistent cruelty. If His Worship said there was a case to answer, defendant Would distinctly deny ever assaulting his wife. He was prepared to admit having been drunk and using violent language. At the suggestion of His Worship, counsel conferred with their clients, and as a result agreed to an order for separation and the payment of 5s per week towards his wife's maintenance by the defendant, as well as complainant's costs, 30s. An order was made by consent accordingly.