EVANGELIST'S CONDUCT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20931, 22 July 1931, Page 12

EVANGELIST'S CONDUCT.

"WIFE'S SEPARATION ORDER.

HEARING OF. .AN APPEAL.

EVIDENCE OF NEIGHBOURS. The hearing of an appeal against a (separation order granted in the Magistrate's Court last February to Henrietta May Thomas, against her husband, iWilliam John Tremayne Thomas, described as an evangelist, was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday before 'Mr. Justice Smith. Mr. Sullivan appeared for the appellant and Sirs. Thomas t was represented by Mr. S. C. Clarke. The case was taken by way of a rehearing and in her evidence on Monday respondent alleged that her husband had used threatening conduct, had assaulted her and had failed to maintain her. In opening his cross-examination of respondent yesterday, Mr. Sullivan drew her attention to letters which had been -written by her and by a firm of solicitors to her husband. Reading a portion of the letters counsel referred -to the absence of any suggestion of -cruelty or improper treatment. "Did not the suggestion of bad language imd drunkenness come into your' mind after your child was taken by your husband in December?" was a question asked of respondent, who replied that previously there had been no need to refer to it. Mr. Sullivan T Did you mention the matter before the child was taken ? Witness: Until that time I was satisfied to let matters remain as they' were. z - * j Complaint of an Alleged Assault. Constable Snow, of Birkenhead, stated that appellant had a good character, but was eccentric. The only work he had done recently was three or four days on a. relief job. On the evening of Jannary 29, 1930, appellant, with his wife's brother and another man, called at the police station. A complaint was made against appellant Slid it was stated in his presence that he had assaulted his wife. Appellant had some' blood on his forehead and shirt when he arrived at the police station. Mr. Sullivan: Why did you not investigate tho circumstances of Thomas' injury ? Witness: It was not necessary in view of the explanation made. You were prejudiced against Thomas? «—No. Evidence of Respondent's Brother. Percy Wilfred Waite Johnston, brother of respondent, stated that appellant had lived at Birkenhead for eight years and had not worked upon his property. Witness had helped him with ■ gifts of milk and vegetables. On the evening of January 29 witness was called to Thomas' house and he met Thomas in the hallWay where there was a scuffle. After appellant was overpowered he was still muttering. Witness did not feel justified in letting him go free so he took him to the police station. Lately Mrs. Thomas had occupied rooms- at witness' house. ............ . '

To Mr. Sullivan witness denied that he had. frequently used bad language to appellant or that he had assaulted him. He had not found Thomas in bed on the night in question.

Mr. Clarke stated that another witness, Miss Mitchell, who was at Thomas' house on January 29, had not appeared at the Court. He asked that the evidence she had given in the lower Court should be accepted. Mr. Sullivan objected to this procedure and His Honor said it would be better to call the witness. Accordingly, the case was adjourned sine die,