AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12954, 25 August 1905, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

CHARGE OF PERJURY.

TWELVE MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT.

At the Supreme Court, at half-past ten yes today morning, His Honor Mr. Justice Ed wards sentenced a young Mfcori named Niko Maniapoto, who was found guilty several days ago ot having committed perjury while giving evidence in a case at and who was remanded for several days i.i order that a technical point, winch was raised by Ins counsel (Dr. Bamford), might be decided Dr. Bamford said yesterday that in consequenceoi the opinions which Lad been expressed by the various judges in regard tn the point that the conviction was not war? runted, upon the ground that there was no corroborative evidence, ho would not press his request lor the point to be resoLd He asked that the prisoner be admitted probation, or, failing that, that His Ho nor instead 01 Bonding lum to prison, would in! ilict a hue., the prisoner would rather pav » line than go to prison, and in order to pay ho would sell his lands and timber which he had inherited from his mother ' lis Honor said that he could not adopt e-.tl.er of the courses which had been suggested, prisoner had been found guilty ol perjury ol the worst class, and it was quite evident that he did it deliberately lis Honor thereupon passed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment with hard labour.

FALSE PRETENCES.

TWO YEARS' HARD LABOUR. A middle-aged man named James McLean who pleaded guilty in the lower Court to a charge of obtaining goods and money by means of false pretences at New Plymouth was then brought forward. ' ' Asked if he had anything to say before. sentence was passed, the prisoner, in the course of a pathetic appeal to the judge said that there no protection for It. nun who once got info trouble. The police, he said, ever since he came out of gaol had hunted him down, so that he could not r- e t work. a °

His Honor, in passing sentence, said, according to his record, the prisoner had'evidently been at this sort of business for some time, having been convicted for false prefences before, and for theft upon several occasions. It would be a hopeless thing to impose a light sentence in the expectation that he might reform. The prisoner was then sentenced to two years' hard labour On the application of the Crown solicitor (the Hon. J. A. Tole), who was in attendance, His Honor ordered that the sum of £o 6s 6d, and the new clothing, which were . found in the prisoner's possession, be returned to Mr. Hold water, manager of the Aucks land Clothing Company at New Plymouth.

DIVORCE CASES.

A WIFE'S APPLICATION.

DESERTED TEN DAYS AFTER THE

WEDDING. His Honor heard three out of the seven divorce cases which were set down for hearing. The tale of how a man left bis wife 10 days after their marriage, was related by an' attractive-looking young woman mimed Florence Mary Langridge. who petitioned for a decree nisi. ,

Mr. Martin, on behalf of the- petitioner, stated that the application was lodged on account of desertion and failure to support. The parties, ho said, were only married for 10 days when the respondent left for the Straits Settlements. That was seven years ago, and since- then his wife had not .sees him. The petitioner, a woman of about 27 years of ago, said that she was married to the respondent, Cecil Balconibe Langridge, at Raglan, in May, 1898. There was one child, born in January, 1899,. ' Mr. Martin: I think that at the time of your marriage your husband had arranged to take -a place at the Straits Settlements? Petitioner: Yes. And as soon as he got there and had settled down 1 believe that it was arranged that ho should send for '/-Yes. ■ Continuing, witness stated that after her husband left for the Straits Settlements, in 1898, she staved on with her mother. She heard from her husband frequently up till November, 1899. After that she never heard anything more from him. She then made inquiries for him at the Straits Settlements, Sin "apore, and Australia. Mr. Martin: With what result.' _ Petitioner: I learned that he began drinking, and as a result lost his position. He then went away to Borneo. Hid he ever send you. any money with which to support yourself and) your child.'— He only sent £15. That was in September, IRQR I think you also learned that money had been sent to you through him .'-Yes; but it never reached me. How much was it?—£3s. Petitioner went on to say that this money, which was sent by his people in England, was for the purpose of paying her passage to the Straits Settlements, so that she could job him. After December, 1899, she never heard of him again until shortly before laid the present petition. She then heard that he was in New Zealand As the result of inquiries which were made by the police she discovered that he was working at ft mill near Stratford, Taranaki. Evidence as to the respondent ta m Stratford in 1904 was given by Thomas Kendall. Kendall said that horned this through the agency of the police. M ter. that he disappeared, and witness-saw his name in a newspaper m * passenger f* Lyttelton. said that since then the res- ' Mr. Martin said that since then the respondent had not been heard ot. His Honor granted a decree am, to be made absolute after three months, withJ*j custody of the child. Costs were granted against the respondent.

WIFE ELOPES WITH A. JOCKEY. The next applicant for a decree Ml was a Grey-street hairdresser named Geo. Edward White. Edgar James. Clntham was named as co-respondent. . Mr. Reed appeared for he pe tone White, in support of his JjjMgJ, t that he married the responden Jfcrgwet Jane White, in England, on August 18, 1896. They afterwards came out to flew Zealand. A child was born in 1903, and another in 1904, but the latter was not his. Ho knew" the co-respondent, who was formerly a friend of his. Mr. Reed: What was he, Petitioner: From all I could see he lived by his wits, lie was a f sort oa disqualified jockey I can't call him any th You Cl i your wife became acquainted with him in 1902, did you not.'—X«a. no used to visit our place. ,;,;„,„.,. In reply to further questions petitionu said (hit in December/ 1903, the respondent paid » visit to her aunt down Souh, and subsequently returned. Kt the begin ning of 1904 she paid another visit to f. e same place, and while she was away lie heard rumours to the effect that she WW living with the co-respondent as his we at Palmerston North. He heard this from Chitham's brother. „ His Honor: What did he tell you. Petitioner: He told me that he was no on friendly terms with his .brother, an that they (respondent and co-respondent) were living together in Palmerston North. Mr. Reed: In consequence, nl that did you write 1.0 vour wife? . Petitioner: Yes. but I never got an) reply. . . t Petitioner, resuming, said that the nex. thing he heard was that respondent 'ii co-respondent had returned to Auckland, and were living together as man and w .e at the residence of the co-respondents parents. Petitioner accordingly went in. - to see, her, but could not. He howeve ,', saw Chitham, whom he taxed with Imvn » led away his wife, and also with '.vug with her. He said he cpuldn t help it. ll" loved her so much, and so on. Mis wife and Chitham afterwards lelt . " . Valmerston North. lie tried to ton I « there, but could not. At about that Inno a young woman named little clc Young' visited him at his rooms. She said tlwt

not,- Sl?e£ri t ™ Be6 . it { butßhewouW in the fireplace Aft d £ rew tue wees r ces **ummtnftf he ? g U , P these discovered tint? g , to 6 ether > ''« wife. hat lfc was * letter from his

h/lai/? 1 here .wad the letter, which, f ™>" Palm Sto n North / ft" l ' eSp ° nd6n( in question I? fl° Ito U,e - youn Wy munica tol the \S U; T.? 1 this c °™' elad to „„„ ti , , nter said th at she was upon h?^ eyhadallturned, - l V over -,' n Was ust as good as he ~,',," ," s '" <l llli " >*" l» read Urn dent and ™ ,■-,,, V, Ule respunfcuiiei m Ureymouth ° the °? Greymouth. She said Ih.i ' ' laCe , at " " Ll mothers place as "Mr and ¥.-« Chitham" in December and M - aml Mrs. lr w "eccmber and March last "a'inisi the co-respondent.

A WIFE'S PITIFUL STORY fr ( m? Sie ii; aU J ey I POt 'i tlo, ' wl '«■ ■ divorce 'lorn her husband, Edward Stephen L gley upon the grounds of cruel^XS M 1 ' fT*' w,d /»«•"» to maintain. -Mi Brookheld appeared for the petitioner. Hie petitioner add she married the re-* jpondeut at St, Matthew's Church, An kortwo 1 0 J ; ,19 °- Sll e had kHoW hhn rin H rCG i yeai ' S P rfor fco tllis - *** signs of drink upon him. After their mar--3v y , WCUt ta reside m Montaguesued Aewton, where a houso had been provided for them by his father. They had ot been married for 10 days before he took o ink-and as he would not attend to her while she was lying ffl Bhe hiu] k> tt] hospital. After staying there for two or thiee months she returned ami resided with Sri.',I m He l*! l, -'« Again he started dunking While they were there he was drunk almost every day—in fact, he was continuous y drunk. He lost his'situation iii Jus fathers employ, and subsequently started a business at Birkenhead, but lie had to give this up also through his drinking habits. She took a prohibition order out against him, but it only made him worse. -Air. Brookfiehl: That, unfortunately, is so, lour Honor, in most cases. Continuing, petitioner said that they afterwards shifted ' to Ponsonby, where a child was born. The respondent, however, did nothing to support them; ho did nothing but drink. Finally they had to go and live with her parent's at Devonport. Her husband's conduct, however, did not improve. He kept on drinking, and had on several occasions to bo turned out. He was given chance after chance to re'orm, but did not. On several occasions when her father turned him out lie wrote to her as his "dear wife," and signed himgelf as your affectionate husband." In one of these letters, which was read, the respondent said that lie had "absolutely sworn off drink." She saw him the day after she. received this. He was then very drunk.

The letter acknowledging the receipt of the service of the petition was also read. The respondent in this communication said that ho was not going to defend, and signed himself as "your broken-hearted husband, Ted."

Petitioner further said that the respondent's people did not blame her for suing for a divorce; on the contrary, they said that she was "too good for him." Since her marriage her husband had not supported her properly. Up. to the time of going to Birkenhead he only allowed her 10s per week, and after that he gave her nothing at all. In order to make ends meet she had had to take in a boarder and some sewing. During the past: two years she had had to keep herself and child entirely. Mr, Brookfield: Has he been kind to you? Petitioner: No, he has shown me ho kindness at all. In what way has he been cruel Mostly by throwing things at me. He threw a plate one night, some fruit another—in fact, he threw whatever lie could lay his hands on. On one occasion he struck me because I would not give him money for drink. Petitioners father, William B. Meld rum, gave evidence as to the respondent's drunken habits. A youth named Williams also gave evidence. He said that when he was residing with the parties in Ponsonby he saw respondent cruelly ill-treat his wife. A decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months, was granted, also costs against respondent. The Court then adjourned until half-past ten this morning. OTHER CASES. The action, Edgar John Miles and Catherine Harriet Miles- (Mr. Martin) v. Ernest Harrowell Bennett (Mr. Blair), a claim for £500 and £1500 damages for alleged injuries received, was adjourned by consent until next sittings, Mr. Martin stating thatone of the principal witnesses was ill. In the matter of Massey Brothers, Limited (Mr. Martin, instructed by Mr. McGregor), v. Elizabeth Blakey (no defence) a.nd Paul Bock (Mr. Smith), 'a. claim for possession of land and £20 for arrears of rent, judgment was'entered by default against Elizabeth Blakey for possession and for £17 rent, and by consent against. Bock, in terms agreed upon, and according to a- memorandum lodged with the registrar. The following cases were ordered to stand at the bottom of the list:— Dora Eyre (Mr. Griffiths) v. Sir George Maurice O'Rorke and Wm. Henry Churton (Mr. Blair), a claim for £180 9s lid 1 and interest; Francis Hull (Mr. Martin, instructed by Mr. Mahony) v. Edward Glenlivet Elliott (Mr. Colbeck), an action, for partnership accounts; and John Schischka (Mr. Martin) v. Gordon Agnew (Mr. Hammond), a counter claim for the balance of accounts,, etc., £150, proceeds of sale, and £500 damages, etc. On the application of Mr. Reed, for the plaintiff, it was arranged that the action, James Michael McCarthy v. Charles Cakshott Phair (Mr. Earl), a claim for specific performance, should bo taken to-day.