MARITAL MISERIES.

NZ Truth, Issue 104, 15 June 1907, Page 5

MARITAL MISERIES.

SHE HAD PLENTY OF VARIETY

Was Parson Drummond the

Daddy?

She went Down on Her Knees.

| A most unusual case was heard at Christchurch this week when Maurice William Edwards was charged with i deserting his wife, and denied it with 'some vehmence. Some unsavory charges were made by him against the missus, and she contradicted them with tears m her eyes. It transpired that the parties had been married about 18 years, and there were three children, aged 16, the second seven, and the last fourteen months. The accused was stated to be 57 years ; the wife 40. He had been farming, but hadn't followed agriculture for the last five years. The parting happened the first week m March m Westralia ; the woman being now only a fortnight m Maoriland. They had lived nine years m the West, and they parted oh good terms, the husband promising to send for wine m six weeks' time. But after going away he wrote her a nice fond letter saying that the children weren't his. but were by three different fathers. Is that true ? asked the S.M. It is quite untrue, was the reply. Any foundation for such a charge? None whatever. So you followed him to New Zealand ?— Yes , he left me £5 and the furniture, which I sold. The S.M. here perused the letter which accused her of bad conduct. Also that she had driven him from a good country, and a good home. When he had laid the foundation of a competence she had spoiled him entirely, and his ideas were thwarted. , Is that true ?— No, replied the woman, who started to cry, but was abruptly told to drop that racket. T!he S.M.- : The letter goes no to say that your first child was registered m its TRUE FATHER'S NAME, „ as well as m his (the writer's), what about that ?— I don't know anything about the registration of that child. And he mentions a Dr. "Williams, who is he ?— He is the principal doctor at Bunbury. Did anything happen between you and this doctor ?— Nothing at all. I see it says something about an enclosed letter, and that is dated a year back ; you must have been living together then ? — We were. And he wrote it, and never posted it until -he got away ?— That's ripjht. Did you give him grounds for accusing you of going with other men ?— None. Mr. Leatham cross-examined the complainant. It appeared that they lived m 'West Oxford, Canterbury, many years ago, and he had left her for a year and eleven months. i Did he accuse you of having been unfaithful to him, and that Brown, of West Oxford, was the father ?— Yes. And what about the third ; didn't he say that one Drummond, a Wesleyan parson, or lay preacher, or something, was the father ? .The S.M. : A farmer, and a doctor, and a Wesleyan preacher— plenty of variety. Do you know this Wesleyan parson '?— Yes. ! Counsel : Didn't you go down on your knees, and wring your hands, and admit your guilt, and implore forgiveness on account of your CARRYINGS ON WITH THIS PERSON ? —I never did. Is your last child registered, and who registered it ? — My sister did ; he is called Samuel Henry Norman Edwards. You have a sister living at New Brighton here ?— Yes. . And your husband visited her, and made no secret of his whereabouts ? —That is so. And haven't you visited him since he has been m gaol ?— Yes. And didn't you say that you would get him released if he promised to provide a home for yourself and children ? No ;tf merely brought him a letter. He is an old man now, and is on*ly getting a pound a week and keep, will 12/6 satisfy you ? The complainant here adopted a dramatic tone, such as one hears m emotional pieces on the stage, and said, "I know he has been a good husband, and a good father, and I'd be the last person to hurt a hair of his old head. He has always been kind to me and the children. She was here asked if she would let her boy go with his father out to Clarence Bridge, where jhe is working. No ; I won't let him go. The S.M. : But he says the boy isn't his, what does he want him for ? Counsel : He is very fond of the boy. S.M. : Fond of another man's boy ! It was difficult to say what to do m these cases (said the S.M.) where a man was getting small wages, and the woman had children to support. However,, the man must pay maintenance. If what he said was true, and he had lived with this woman all these years, knowing that things weren't as they should be that was his own look-out. The woman would have to try and ; buck up, and do something for herself. He would make an order for 15s a week. The accused here asked if he could say, a word , and being granted permission said: "As true as God's mv judge that woman WENT DOWN ON HER KNEES to me when she was carrying her jlafit child by Parson Drummond, and implored forgiveness." The S.M. said that might be, but so long as he was united to his •wife he couldn't bastardise his own ichildren. ' "If I hadn't manied her I wouldn't (have been a poor man/ wailed accused. There are plenty of men who are poor on the same account, said the Bench ; but there are any number of women who are poorer when they meet men like you. Then the curtain rang down.