WANGANUI.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 4607, 11 March 1902, Page 3

WANGANUI.

(By Telegraph—Own Correspondent.) Mondav, ti.'JO p.m. Mr Herbert Mowtell, 'caretaker of tho borough baths, whose disappearance •some weeks ago occasioned a good deal of speculation and alarm, np again by Saturday night’s train from Napier. The members of tho Wanganui Garrison Band taking part in tho Now Plymouth contest marched to the rail--way station this afternoon, anti were accorded a hearty send-off by many friends and supporters. Tho death is announced of Mr C. o. Budge, a well-known storekeeper at Fordeli.

In tho Supremo Court this morning in divorce two cases were heard. In tho petition of Isabel Healey v. James Healey, Mr Treadwell appeared for the petitioner. The application was made on the ground of desertion by respondent, who did not appear, and who was not represented by counsel. A decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute in three months. In the case Margaret Jessie Gaussen v. George Loftus Hatton Gansscn (a wife’s petition), Mr Treadwell appeared for -the petitioner. The grouitds of the petition wore desertion and habitual drunkenness. The respondent- did not appear, nor was ho represented. Petitioner gave evidence as to marriage in Auckland in 1894, the habits of intemperance of tho husband, who was a remittance man, and of bis neglect and ultimate desertion of petitioner, who, after the birth of a child in Auckland, came to Wanganui, and lived with her brother. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months. Tho trouble in connection with the Maxwelltown School, which has been a source of worry to the Board for a long time past, came to a head in tho Supremo Court to-day, when tho teacher of tho school, Alfred Goldsbury, proceeded against Henrich Hartwig Chris-, toplicr Dierks, Lutheran minister and chairman of the School Committee, for alleged slander. Tho statement of claim alleges that on the 11th day of November last defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published of plaintiff in respect of his profession of schoolmaster the following words: “The worst thing is, Mr Goldsbury does not shrink from telling a lie when it is in his favour. I will prove that ho is a very untrue man.” Wherefore the plaintiff claims damages £SO. Tho defence briefly is that the letter was written officially and in tho honest belief that every statement therein was true, and was made bona fide on a matter in which defendant had an interest and in reference to which ho had a duty to perform, and was published only to the said Education Board, which bad a corresponding interest and duty in that behalf. Tho evidence is not concluded. At tho Police Court this morning an inquest was held into the circumstances surrounding tho death yesterday morning of the newly-bom infant of Mr and Mrs Augustus Townsend, St. John’s Hill. Evidence was given by Dr Innes, who said death might have occurred even if a; duly qualified medical man had been present. Augustus Townsend said his wife engaged Dr Barnard some months previous. Witness stated that he went down to Dr Barnard’s, arriving there about 1.30 a.m. Witness went on his bicycle, and knew tho doctor had a bicycle. The second ring by witness was answered by the doctor opening a window upstairs, and putting his head out. Witness continued: “I told him my business, saying ‘ Como quick, doctor.’ He said, ‘ I’m sorry, I can’t come.’ I said, ‘Why? You wero engaged, and you will have to come now.’ Ho said ‘ Yes, but I really can’t come. I have another case, and could not do justice to both.’ I said, ‘l’m here first, and my wife is as important as anybody else, and you must come.’ Ho said 1 1 cannot come.’ I said, ‘ Good God! what am I to do at this time of night?’ He said, ‘ I will give you’ a letter to Dr Porritt.’ I said, ‘I cannot wait for any letters. Where docs Porritt live?’ I was told where, and went to Dr Porritt’s house. Some female came on to tho balcony, and said Dr Porritt could not come. He had an urgent case on, and was very sorry. I tjiert called on Dr Hatherley, whoso son stated that his father was expecting every moment to bo called on to Bury Hill, and-could not come. I asked Hatherley, junior, if he thought Dr Earlo was at home, the reply being that he thought not. Ho also said it was unusual for a doctor to come away unless ho had been previously retained.” Witness then went straight home, acquainting his wife that he had not been able to obtain a doctor. The child was born about half an hour after that. Ho had not seen Dr Barnard since, and had not asked him for an explanation. Dr Barnard’s evidence was to the effect that he had been called to Aramoho the same night at ten o’clock. He found his services were not required .or an hour or two, and left ■ his instruments at tho house and went home. Townsend came as stated. Witness told him of tho Aramoho case, and said he could not attend his-wife. He then offered to give him a letter to Dr Porritt. Townsend was impatient, and went off without the letter. Tho verdict was to the effect that child died from obstruction of the circular tion. No blame was attachable to the nurse.