AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13198, 8 June 1906, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

—, «i ALLEGED CATTLE-STEALING. | VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. The trial of Patrick O'Connor upon a ' charge- of stealing two heifers and a steer at Kanohi, near Helensville, was resumed at the Supreme Court before His Honor Mr. , Justice Edwards yesterday morning. The Hon. J. A. Tola, Crown solicitor, •appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. J. R. Luudon for the accused. James .Naughton gave evidence. • Detective Fahey said he arrested accused on March 7. His Honor: What did you arrest him . for? , Detective Fahey: I was acting under instruct ions. , His Honor said it was highly improper 1., arrest a. man under such circumstances. He had siid so before. If the detective acted under instructions, he was not to blame. He would have to make representations to the Minister for Justice. , This closed the case for the Crown. Accused said that he bred the cattle in question, and asserted positively that they belonged to him. He informed Nailghton of this when the latter claimed them. In reply to Mr, Tole, accused said he was certain the cattle were his. It was not because the animals were marked on the right ear that he claimed them. He was not making any mistake. A number of witnesses were called to certify that the cattle in dispute belonged to O'Connor. Several other witnesses Testified to O'Connor's good character in the district. ..'■"'.-. Neither counsel addressed the jury. ' His Honor, in summing up, said a" great deal of time had been wasted on this case, which should never have been brought! He had directed the grand jury to throw out the bill and he was sorry they had not done so. His Honor went on "to intimate that he thought it was a case for civil, instead of criminal, proceedings. ' ■ The jury, after a short retirement, brought in a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. . His Honor remarked that it would be a matter of interest to see how much the

ease had cost the country. The witnesses had been kept hanging about for 14 days oyer nothing. * Mr. Tole remarked that if grand juries had been abolished either he or His Honor would have found no bill. Hi* Honor said lie was not in favour of abolishing grand juries. .'■..;■ This concluded the criminal sittings. W ' IN DIVORCE. . SCHOOLMISTRESS' ..MATRIMONIAL AFFAIRS. A middle-aged woman named Charlotte Currie petitioned for a divorce from her husband, George Carrie, upon the grounds of persistent cruelty and failure to support. .--■ ~' • r Mr. J. C. Martin appeared for the petitioner. Charlotte Currie, who described herself as ? schoolmistress, residing at Haurangi, Taranaki, said she was married to respondent in September, 1884, at the regis- . trar's office, Auckland. She married him against* her parents' wishes, and'without ;■ their consent. Respondent was a farmer, and she went to live with him at Waiuku. She had four children. Mr. Martin: Did your husband attend ' to his business as a fanner? - *• ! - Petitioner: He attended all the race meetings in the country, and was constantly away from home. ■;, Continuing, petitioner said her husband's conduct to net was unkind- and cruel /especially when thev were alone. He told her that he would be very glad to get rid of her. On one occasion, when she 'coin-', plained about his not getting up for breakfast,' lie took down a revolver and threatened to shoot her. She informed him that he might, as her life was not worth much then. In November, 1892, she made up her mind to leave him He said he would not kick her out, but she could go. His reason for adopting this attitude was that lie could not be compelled to support her. He said that if she brought him before the Court• he would say,' " vVell, there's your home." On the day that she was leaving he assaulted her, and said that if she screamed it would be her last.. She was completely broken down with the treatment she received. She came to Auckland, where she entered general service. She left the two eldest children with respond- " ent, and agreed to lake charge of the third one herself. The fourth had died. Subsequently her husband asked her to return home, and' she agreed to do so on condition that he reformed. A week'or so afterwards, before her engagement was up, he . eked her to return at? once, and said that she did not do so then she would never ave another .'opportunity. Aoout two ■ ears later she wrote to respondent, asking "" f they could not contrive to live peacefully together for the sake of the children. He replied that he had ceased to care- for her, and threatened that if she did come home he would take the children away. , Some time ago her husband instituted divorce proceedings against, her, upon the grounds of desertion, but did not proceed when she notified she would appear.. '* ■ Thomas Finlay, brother of the petitioner, also gave evidence. ; Constable Simpson, of Wellington, said Sstitioner boarded at witness' house, at ltham, some years ago. She then showed him a letter which she said she had received from her husband. The writer said he had ceased to care for her, and threatened that if she Acnt home ho would take the children away. A decree nisi, to be moved absolute in -.three months, was granted. -Costs were allowed on, the highest scale.