THE MEWHINNEY CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7869, 3 August 1911, Page 1

THE MEWHINNEY CASE

FATHER WANTS THE CHILDREN MOTHER'S ACTIONS REVIEWED. THOSE'LETTERS TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

The Appeal Court sat yesterday to continue the, hearing of the now notorious case Metvhinney v. Mcwliiuney. Nettie Lena Mewhinney obtained in June of last year a divorce from her husband- Oliver Mewhinney,* on the ground of adultery. After some time the custody of the children was given to Airs Mewhinney. Against this order respondent appealed.

Tho bonoli was occupied by Justices Denniston, Chapman and Sim. The appellant appeared in person, and Mr A. Gray appeared for the respondent. AN ALLEGED "ARRANGEMENT.” Appellant continued liis address to the court, and went on to mention tho "arrangement,” which he alleged was made at the trial, by which ho should refrain from calling evidence, and allow the decree nisi to issue. It was owing to this arrangement that only half the case was presented, through , his having offered no evidence. He was going on to say what the' real facts of the case were, when v Mr Justice Deniiiston said that the court could not concern itself with anything , not presented before it in the planted case. Ho also advised Mr' Mewbinney that divorce cases were never "arranged,” and the court could not hear anything about any arrangement to which the Chief Justice was alleged to be a party. Appellant referred to the conduct of the . trial by the Chief Justice, particularly to the fact that’the latter had persistently prevented his counsel . from asking certain questions, whereupon he was informed by Mr Justice Chapman that ho might bo quite sure that the' questions were such that his Honor ought to have ruled - out. Ho proceeded to argue from the evidence that Mrs Mewhinney was not a fit and proper person to have control of children. He stated that on more than one occasion Mrs Mewhinney had. deserted the children, that when they were living as man and wife she had smashed furniture, had refused to attend to ordinary household duties, and; had kept him awake at night, by screaming ..with fhe object of making, the neighbours think she was being ill-treated. Concerning the Chief Justice's finding ho asked leave to read certain letters. ABOUT THE LETTERS.

■ Hr Justice Denniston: | What letters are they?- , Mr Mewhinney: Tetters to the Chief Justice ' from the Women’s Protection Society. Their. Honors would not permit appellant to make any reference whatever to this correspondence", and the president of the court gave several i very clear and distinct rulings on the point. In spite of this appellant made several attempts to introduce the matter until Mr Justice Donniston had to warn him somewhat sternly. Mr Justice Denniston: Mr Mewhinney, you have had a . hearing. If you proceed any farther in this direction, the court will proceed to act in a very definite manner. Ton don’t pretend to misunderstand, the ruling, and if you go on to make any allusion to this matter the court will take immediate action.

■ Hr Mewhinney: Can’t I speak at all, your Honor? ~ Mr Justice Denniston; You may speak on any other subject than that. . Mr Mewhinney: X must put a 1 supposititious case.:

Mr Justice Denniston: No, you are not at liberty, td : put a supposititious case. And if you . make any further allusion to this, matter' after the direction the court has giyoimyou', the court will take very definite action.

Mr Mewhinney: Then I can’t show the cause of the'whole trouble. That is the-very point T was appealing on. - Mr J ustice Denniston: If you proceed further on this point: we must intimate that we decline to hear you further. If you have any other subjects on which you "wish to address ris we shall hear you.

After a : moment or two of delay, Mr Mewhinney: asked that the luncheon adjournment bo take then (12.30) to give him an opportunity "to consider his position.” 'The president of the court asked that he state his reason a little more definitely, iur Mewhinney indicated that he was not quite clear as to how he had best go on. “I don’t care,” be said, “what happens to me. if I can safeguard my innocent children.” ' Mr Justice Denniston: That is more rhetoric. We don’t want any of that. MEDICAE BEASOXS SUGGESTED. Mr Mewhinney: Jt is very sincere, your Honor. I submit it would be highly improper to leave these children with their mother for medical reasons. Wo say that she is suffering from

Mr Justice Denniston: You hare no right'to reflect on Mrs Mewhinney. Mr Mewhinney; Not oron if 1 hare ground for reflecting? Mr Justice Denniston; IVe can’t hear yon on any medical reasons , not before the court. It would he a most improper thing to -allow you to introduce charges against your wife without material — most improper even - to permit you to refer to them. This closed tho incident, but before ’ the court rose Mr Justice Chapman said: It can’t bo disguised,that you have made several attempts to evade the ruling of the court. You hare probably a strong motive for doing so, but.you are not doing yourself any good.TEE OTHER SIDE. ’ NO EVIDENCE OF IMPROPRIETY. Mr Gray,, opening the case for the respondent, said that there was no evidence whatever of any misconduct on the. part of Mrs Mewhinney. There , was on the contrary evidence of persons of tinquestioned integrity, neighbours of tils Mewhinneys when they lived together,, 'who said by affidavit and by sworn evidence that Mrs Mewhinney was ' a woman of good character and an exemplary mother. Mewhinney did not go on with his charges against his wife at the trial, nor did he call evidence on the second occasion when the case was before the court- 'All-the evidence offered was in several affidavits. A STRANGE MAE.

One of these related to her staying at tho some hotel in Dunedin with, a man.

n anted Lamb,. whom she knew. . She explained very satisfactorily her reasons for going to Dunedin—to search for her: children. This might or might not be a prudent thing to do, but it could not ,: ho suggested that it was a wrong thing’ for her to do. She was a young and impulsive woman.,; Her conduct could v scarcely ho judged oi( the sane standard as that of a young married woman' living , f hapnily with her husband. . She," went to Dunedin and met a man, a perfectly honourable man according to the Cviv ’• denoe', and there was nothing to show - . , that she had been; : guilty of anything worse than indiscretion.' : Their Honors made some comments. concerning this strange man Lamb, whom it,was stated Mrs Mewhinney had first met hy accident on ihu Hutt road. Hr Gray had to reply to their ‘ queries that ho did not. know the man or anything more about him-than was t shown in the evidence. This was to the effect that the stranger found Mrs Mewhinney in Dunedin at a time when ' she was leaving,an. hotel where she was not comfortable, and took her to. another. At the house, she posed as his sister, and when they left ho paid her bill. Mrs Mewhinney raid that it . was - her money, hut their Honors were insistent that the circumstance was not without some weight. There was also the evidence, denied by Mrs Mewhinney, . that this stranger took up to “his sis-, ter’s” bedroom a morning cup of cocoa. They remarked mlso that if the evidence on affidavit of one MclCcchnie, who deposed to this, had been that of a'pur-; chased witness; it might have been much, stronger. There might have been worse r. r things alleged .than a mere “cup of," cocoa.” ■' - , ' Mr Gray urged . thrffc the evidence. , , offered was quite'-insufficient fo enable ; . the court to find that -Mrs Mewhinney had been guilty of such .misconduct as to disqualify,her ■ from, being., given custody of the, children; ■ Mr Justice Dimuslon said that at tho trial there seemed to have been some. 30rfc of a between Hie parties. His Honor had nfohahly acquiesced .-in the dropping of the. charges-against Mrs 'Mewhinney. particularly as there was no vorv evident object in -pressing. them. On the other hand,, he did ’ not inform Mewhinney—doubtless *bccauso if had not occurred to him—that the, charges might be very valuable in determining the question aVto who should have . .custody of the children. Mr- Mewhinney replied briefly, asking the court to realise its responsibility to tho children, who mast be the first siderationjudgment was reserved.