A FATAL FIFE IN SOUTHLAND

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7336, 14 January 1911, Page 1

A FATAL FIFE IN SOUTHLAND

THREE LIVES LOST FARMER BURNT ATTEMI'TING RESCUE OF TWO CHILDREN. PttESS ASSOCIATION. INVERCARGILL, January 13. A sad burning fata-lity occurred at Menzies' Ferry this morning, a small daily farmer named Edward Sainsbury and tw-o children, one an infant aud the other about two years old, being the victims. Sainsbury and his wife left the house at an early hour to milk tho cows in the shed a hundred yards away. About an hour afterwards the house was seen to be on fire. The father, hastened to rescue the children, and entered a window. He was not seen afterwards. The building and furniture were destroyed, and the charred bodies of the father and children were found in- the debris. Sainsbury, who was thirty years of age, had been farming at Menzies' Ferry for seven years, and came from the Lakes district, where his widow's relatives aro said to reside. BURNT BEYOND RECOGNITION, GORE, Januiuy 13. When Mr and Mrs Sainsbury left the house they had given instructions to their adopted son to start the fir* in the stove and then follow to assist with tho cows, the two children—a boy aged tour years and a girl eighteen -months old —being asleep. When the house was seen in flames Sainsbury rushed in and the wife also attempted to enter by a side window, but was beaten, back' by smoke and flames. The cottage was levelled to the ground in an incredibly short time, and tho bodies were burut beyond recognition. heard in camera. He then asked the court to give him time. lie wished to have the order varied. Surely his Honor could look at the case from the standpoint of a father. His Honor: I must administer the law of the land, and you must obey the law of the land. Respondent: A wrong order has been made. His Honor: You can appeal, or apply for discharge of the order. LETTERS TO CHIEF JUSTICE. Respondent: But Mrs Atkinson -has appealed to his Honor. '. A long letter written by Mrs'Atkinson to Sir Robert Stout having an important bearing on the case was read by At-ewhinney. This was dated, Wadestown, December 20th last. He also read a resolution passed by the Society for tho Protection of Women and Children for presentation to the Chief Justice, stating that in the opinion of the society it would be wrong to let the children go to Mrs Mewhinney. He also read certificates from medical men as to Mrs Mewhiimey's mental condition at the end of 190!>. ' Mr Myers said no' person should dare write such letters. Respondent also read two doctors' certificates issued in 1909 setting out that petitioner was of a hysterical temperament, and suffered from delusions. Under the circumstances she was not fit to have charge of children. Mr Myers said that evidence had been called which showed ■ that Mrs Mewhinney was of good character and three doctors had certified that her health was good. Mewhinney had had all the information he was • now quoting, but had not used it. Mr Mewhinney: Sir Robert stepped in with an arrangement. It had been arranged to keep, the children away. Mr Myers: Respondent has his solicitor. Respondent: He is out of town. Mr Myers said the order had been made and tho court should not bo flouted. HIS HONOR'S ADVICE. , His Honor informed respondent that he was now in custody. Ho did not see how he could discharge respondent, seeing that he knew of the order in September and thcro had been plenty of time for actiou. Respondent: It was never served. - His- Honor: You knew it had been made. Respondent: Mrs Atkinson undertook .to get it cancelled. ' His Honor wanted to know whether they could settle the matter amicably. Could not some neutral party arrange between them? Mr Myers said respondent had deliberately had the children removed from Wellington so that the order of the court should not take effect. Respondent: On the understanding lhat -Mrs Atkinson would get it cancelled. She -will take the responsibility o-f what sho has done. His Honor remarked that it was a difficult case. He was sure respondent was acting according to his conscience, but he might be strong-headed. It was an unfortunate time for such proceedings. Mr Myers said petitioner was fond of i her children and wished to have them -with her at this time of the year. It was absurd to say they would bo in any way injured. He had no doubt that respondent had exaggerated the case. Tho mother felt it very keenly that tho children were absent. Mr Mewhinney said an application had been lodged by Messrs Gray and Jackson' to the effect that Mrs Mewhinney should have permanent custody of the children. His Honor again said .that respondent was strong-headed, although he might be perfectly conscientious in his convictions. Mr Myers: It may be done as a part of the urocess of irritation. Mr Mewhinney: I get nothing out of goins to gaol.- ■ RESPONDENT PREFERS GAOL. Mr Myers: I ask that he be committed if the order is not obeyed until he purges his contempt. His Honor • You ask his commitment to the Terrace Gaol until February. Ist or until he purges his contempt.? Mr Myers: Yes. His Honor : It is a most painful duty, but it is obvious. He did not like sending a man to gaol when he had a conscientons conviction, but ho had a duty to discharge to the public. j Mr Mewhinney: I am prepared to g°

into enternity to protect these children if necessary. His Honor : It is not necessary to go there. I'ou will find cue Terrace Gaol sufficiently unpleasant. You aro in contempt; tuat- is quito piarn. You are now in the custody of the law. 1 cannot discharge you as long us you persist in contempt. , it is very painful to me- to send a man to .prison; in fact, more so than in the case that recently came before . me. i have not the least doubt in the wbrld that you arc conscientiously acting in regard to • your children. The other case concerned a civil right. No person can be allowed to defy an order of the cotut. If an order of the Supreme Court is allowed (o be defied there is no law in tho land. Y r ou had better bring tho children back and make application as early as possible to the court, j. really do not think it is possible that the children can be seriously harmed because of a few days. -Mr Mewhinney: I would not like to risk iff your Honor. His Honor: It is with extreme reluctance that I make the order. . I'm afraid I must commit you to" his Majesty's prison - until February Ist 'or until you purge your contempt. You had better take my advice, which mil be for the ultimate benefit of your children aud yourself, and hand tnc children over.'

. Mr Mewhinney: School opens on February - Ist. His Honor made one more attempt to induce Mewhinney to bring back the children.

Mr Mewhinney: I appreciate your kindness; but I will not take the responsibility. His Honor said Sir Robert Stout had had the case before him, and .nobody could deny his kindness and his- conscientious desire to do what was right. If respondent were prepared to bring tho children back now it would be all right. Otherwise he would have to go to gaol. Mr Mewhinney: 1 have put my position sincerely before you. My objection is conscientious, and 1 am prepared to

go to gaol rather than hand over the children." Suppose, he said, he brought back the children and they were killed, what then? Anything might happen. He appreciated" the kindness ot his Honor to the full. His Honor said the responsibility had been taken by the Chief Justice in the first place; while Justice Chapman had issued the writ of attachment. Mr Mewhinney : It is no pleasure for me to go to gaol, but the children must be protected. His Honor: You must take the consequences. I have no discretion. You must be committed to his Majesty's prison at Wellington until February Ist, unless you purge youx contempt sooner. I am sure Mr "Myers does not want you to go. Mr Mewhinney was obdurate, and left the court in company with the sheriff.