LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12282, 28 May 1903, Page 7

LAW AND POLICE.

/SUPREME COURT. Oivit Sittings.—

" »PflE civil sittings of the Supremo Court -, continued yesterday before His Honor wers Justice Conolly, when scraral divorce it Justice Conolly, when several divorce , JtiQUi veto dealt with. X FOREIGNER'S PETITION GRANTED. ' Ernest Johann Albert Carl George Ru--idt (petitioner) v. Louise Sophie Johanna Ruwoldt (respondent) and John Bilich (co- ' rtgpo'ndent). There was no appearance of ; , pendent .or co-respondent. Mr. Martin appeared in support of the petition and in briefly stating the case, said that the petition sought a divorce on tho Lands of his wife's adultery with co-re-spondent. The parties were married in Australia on May 9, 1803, and about four vears later the petitioner cany over to New Zealand, followed at an interval of about four months by his wife. They took up their residence in Northern Dargayillo. There were three children of the marriage, only one of whom was living. The co-re-jnondent, Bilich, was a neighbour at Dar- ' eaville, and petitioner had reason to believe Kit there was something between Ids wife ■nd the co-respondent, suspicion having ken aroused by a conversation he overheard between some men in a hut. Subsequently his wife went to Auckland, and although he sent letters to her ho received no replies, three ot his own letters being returned through the post office. This' waa early in 1895. Petitioner then went to town, and after a fruitless search for his wife, communicated with the police, but the officers of the law met with no better success than tho jam himself had done. Ruwoldt, who followed the sea, then shipped to Australia, and on his return again consulted the police, only to find that there was still no trace of hi wife. Some time later, when on a deepsea ship at Naples, he heard something from in Austrian seaman that caused him to mtkfl further inquiries concerning his wife. Returning to Now Zealand early in the present year he obtained information that confirmed his suspicions concerning the relations between the co-respondent and his wife, and led to his taking proceedings to obtain a divorce. Petitioner corroborated tho opening statement. Detective McMahon gave evidence of the search made by the police for Mrs. Ruwoldt, and Albert Bilich, brother of tho co-respondent, stated that a woman had been living with his brother as his wife for some years. He identified a photograph handed in by Mr. Martin as that of the woman in question, tho photograph having already been sworn to by petitionee as that of hi» wife. The evidence concluded, His Honor granted a decree nisi, with costs against corespondent, leave being given to apply for I decree absolute in three months. ACTOR DESERTS HIS WIFE. Zilda Margaret Waring O'Donnell (petitioner) v. John Thomas O'Donnell (respondent): Mr. 0. E. MacCormiek supported the petition, a dissolution of marriage being asked for on the grounds of desertion. There was no appearance of respondent, who was described in the certificate of marriage as a comedian by profession. Examined, petitioner said thai; she was married to the respondent in Auckland on May 15, 1894. Witness continued to reside with her mother pending respondent—who was living in a boardinghouse— providing a home for them as promised. This he failed to do. In 1897 ho left the colony", and had not since been seen or heard of. In all, the respondent had not contributed more than £7 towards the support of herself or tho two children of the marriage. Witness had not. given her husband any cause to desert her; there had been nothing in her conduct of which he could reasonably complain. When last spoken to about getting together « home, respondent saiu he did not intend to do so; lie had someone else ho was coin"to live with. . ° The evidence of the petitioner having been corroborated by the mother, His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to apply for a decree absolute in three months. SUPPORTED HER FAMILY BY GUMDIGGING. Mary Woodcock (petitioner) v. Herbert Woodcock (respondent): The petition, which was supported by Mr. Beale, gave tho wounds as unlawful desertion, and set forth that the parties were married in Auckland on Juue 1, 1831, the respondent being a carpenter. They .went to Wayby (Kaipara district) to reside, and there lived together ipd cohabited, having five children of the Marriage. In May, 1897, respondent sold Iris farm and furniture, leaving herself and fta children practically doatitute: On October 31 following, her husband left the noose, and his wife had not seen or heard of him since, nor had ho contributed towards the support of herself and his children.. The petitioner, called, reiterated the facts Mt forth in the petition, and stated that she supported the children mainly by gumdigging for some years after her husband deserted her. Georje Urquhart, clerk in the Magistrate's Court, Auckland, produced a maintenance order made by the Court against the respondent, but which had never been complied with. ;John Shepherd said he had known peti- • tioner for 20 years. She had the reputation of being an industrious, hard-working woman of good character, and a good wife to respondent. A decree nisi Mas granted, with leave to apply for the decree absolute in three months, the petitioner to have custody of the children.

A HAPPY RELEASE. Catherine Davies (petitioner) v. Frank flyder Davies (respondent): There was no appearance of respondent. Air. Brookfielc. was for the petitioner, who sought a dissolution on the grounds of adultery. Under examination the petitioner stated that she was married in March of 1895, and kv«d with her husband for about 12 months. He wa3_ then convicted of passing counterfeit coins. and sent to prison for sis months. She lived with him again when he came out, this time to. 15 oi 13 months, Wittmho was found guilty of pocket-picking and imprisoned for four months. She re turned to him once more en his being liberated, and the} lived together for about two years. He- was then sentenced to two years imprisonment for ppoket-picking, and wa3 10l» Wed - ° m Mount Eden about March, IKB. She had not lived with him much. He cad not at any time been unkind to her in the matter of treatment, but had not pro P* r 'J; maintained her or the three children; she had to seek assistance from her mother. Witness identified the signature of Frank : «yaer Davies attached to an entry registering the birth of an illegitimate child as the handwriting of her husband. - Arthur Duke, of Eden Terrace, Auckland, said a man who gave his name as Dacrt Uvea m his house some months since. Hi fl »d furnished apartments and lived with a woman who was said to bo his wife. They remained in the house til] February last, 4?° woman was confined early in February. About 10 days or a fortnight after Mrs. Davies men at witness' house, and while she was were the woman who was living with Dncre want to the door. In consequence of the ojnversation that passed between the two women witness spoke to the man in the » K emng, the latter then admitting that hit •We was Daviea, unci that the woman with wnom he was living was not his wife. f,? 0 ,? tr ßfchern, relieving officer oi the gWwJa Aid Board, said lie knew the par Si;,' to the suit. The respondent, Frank «yaer Davies, was the man who had lived n, l , a ,oman named Bessie Bel!, in Mr. ," kB ,? . OMe m ' *'' n Terrace. Thej were - »o<v Uv,ng together as Mr. and Mrs. Darn. with rey " itreet - A decree nisi was granted, wito costs against the respondent, the decree •mo tata to bo applied for in three months. „™? c ' ,s given custody of the children, Tn, iiiß flcacr intimated that an order ol w Per j W6l '' k ™ in th " lower Court against ■ * Pondent towards the maintenance of the imr9c would continue in force. ■■■£ PETITIONER'S SAD STORY. vJli?* Wilson (petitioner) v. John William '"son (respondent): A dissolution of marsi;ff Wi Ecni ß f° r on the ground of de 0 \?" for five ears a " ( l upwards, Mi. J. p7?f. tln appearing in support. petitioner, in her evidence, stated that she ™M married to respondent at Auckland on «ptemb«r 23, 1096, and went to reside at SSFwt**- ' vtly after they were mar - W Wilson began to tlrinl ' heavily, am.. fcteKi low llor an >' money for hou&edri i I P ur Poses. Respondent continued to left fc heavll 7 ri S ht »P till 'he time that ho Won I ln cons;ec l u0 » c of the want oi fo» V parents had to make provision 1897 K maintena,l ce. A child was born in ■*»; i husband rendered no monetary S; anee , either for the clothing o. mainjwwoce of the child. In 1898 she. sough. Mo, .* as granted a separation order in the call? ate ' s Court, and an orde. was made ff '"?K upon her husband to sontribute toOrder f PP° rt of herself and child. The a n j i r . maintenance had not been obeyed, v.j B il e ' ! *d not s ' noe Sft e» respondent, nor orde heard from him - Just aft6r the ; Oiio«„ !!? & ■ mat l ß she met her husband in BE ■XT*!*?*' and he { ' en told her that he ; *o»ii lniond to Jive with her again, and JlrajtoU CQntribute towards her fuiure hadu Ply to . Hia Honoi, petitions said she Won i? " B respondent about two yeart rare they ware married. Sho htfd been

told that he drank, but had not seen him | under the influence of liquor, and did not believe it. George. Urquhart, clerk at the Magistrate's. Court, being sworn, said tho order of the Court for maintenance had not boon complied with. Constable F. Mackle also gave corroborafive evidence as to the failure of the respondent to obey the order for maintenance, and said he understood that Wilson was addicted to drink. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with costs against respondent, with leave to apply for a decree absolute in three months. 'Petitioner was given custody of tho child. This concluded the civil sittings.

POLICE COURT NEWS. Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., was the presiding magistrate at the Pclioe Court yesterday. Drunkenness: A first-offender was convicted and discharged on payment of cab hire. By-laws: Two cabdrivers, named James Hawaii and Win. Joseph Mudford, were each fined 10a. and costs 7s, for leaving their cribs unattended in Fort-street. George Jenner was fined 5s for driving round the corner of Rutland and Lome Streets at other than a walking pace. A charge against a lad named Claude Beach of furiously riding a horso through Newmarket was dismissed after evidence had boon heard. Theft: An old man named Robert McCullough was charged with the thef* of a quantity of tools, valued at 20s, tho property of Alexander Thos. Craig. Sergeant Hendry conducted the prosecution. Mr. Craig stated that ho was engaged in building offices in Messrs. Nathan's new buildings, in Customstreet, and missed the tools, en coming to work one morning. The door of tho building had been broken open. There were alst charges against accused of stealing tools from the same premises, the articles being the property of James Ferguson, stoneinaaon, and William Trayes. carpenter, both being sub-contractors on Nathan's building. Constable Cox deposed to finding some of the stolen property in accused's possession while in tho street. Witness said that accused was frequently to bo seen about the streets late at night. A second-hand dealer, called by tho accused as a witness, denied having sold tho tools to him. Accused maintained j that he had bought the tools from secondhand dealers, and that they had been in his possession for some time. He added that. he had been employed in the Royal Engineers, and when ho could get work at bridgebuilding and stone-breaking he did so. His Worship ordered the accused three months' hard labour at the latter occupation on each of the charges, (sentences to bo concurrent, and on the third charge three months' hard labour, to bo cumulative. •

Discharged: A good-looking young woman named Alice Grey, alias Florrio Clarke, whs charged with the th>ft of £7 10s, the moneys of John Valentine Shoesmith. Shoesmith, who resides at Warkworth, and is in medical practice there, deposed that ho on mo to Auckland on the 25fe1l inst., and engaged a room at the Waverley Hotel. He first, met the accused outside the Criterion Hotel, in Albert-street, and invited her to have a drink with him. They then proceeded to the Waver'ey Hotel, and it was while there witness alleged that the money was taken from his pockets. Witness proceeded to state that a sergeant of police had searched the woman for the money. His Worship : What right had the constable to search the woman on the statement of a drunken man? He had no right whatever to lay hands on the woman. Sub-Inspector Black: Tt is done repeatedly. How is a policeman to ascertain whether a person is guilty of theft- of money if ho does not search him? His Worship : I say that the police absolutely cannot search the person. They must prove by legal evidence that the woman is guilty. The Sub-Inspector: It is done time and again. His Worship: It does not matter two straws how often it is clone. I say that it is not right. Witness continuing, said that both he and (lie accused were very drunk, end that he did rot clearly recollect how much money ho had. He had been spending money all the afternoon, and had been drinking in several hotels. Witness admitted that improper conduct had taken place between the accused and himself while at the hotel. Sub-Inspector Blade said that the witness was hostile, and had made an entirely different statement to the poiioo. Sergeant Hendry said, on being called in, Shoesmith complained that he had been robbed of £10 by the accused. Accused protected her innocence, and handed witness her purse containing 4s, statins; that that was all the money she had. Pending the arrival of the police matron, accused tried to get out of the room to the telephone several times, stating that she was related to several well-known citizens, and wanted to ring them up. Witness prevented her. and she then rat down on a chair, and took off her boot and stocking, and emptied £7 10s in gold and 17s in silver on to the floor. Accused said "The gold is his, and the- silver my own; give him back the gold and take the silver, and let me go, and say no more about it." His Worship said Jhat as the evidence of the prosecutor himself was unreliable, the case could not succeed, and accused must be discharged. Maintenance: William Crowley was adjudged the putative father of an illegitimate child, and ordered to pay 7s 6d per week toward» its support, with costs £1 Is. (Before Mr. H \V. Brabant, S.M.) Indecency: Albert Jenkins was convicted of committing a grossly indecent act in Newton Place, and was ordered to find surety of £5 that he will come up foi sentence within sis months if called upon. Assault: Maud 801 l (16) was charged with assaulting anothei girl named Lottie Gwilliam (12£). Mr. Blair appeared for complainant, and Mr. M. G. McGregor for defendant. Mr. Blair stated that the case was a sequel to the Richardson and Bell trial, the defendant being a sister of the latter. It appeared that some conversation took place between some girls about the trial, at which Mi=3 Gwilliam's father was a witness, when the defendant fell on complainant and assaulted her bv striking her in the face so as to bruise it. and cause her nose to hie d. Defendant alleged that complainant had insulted and provoked her. A fine of 10s, and costs 15s 6d, wa3 imposed.