RHODA'S RIGHTS

NZ Truth, Issue 569, 13 May 1916, Page 3

RHODA'S RIGHTS

A Bigamous Woman's- Claim

An Aftermath of a Recent Case

Davidson Must Provide the "Dollars"

At the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, on Monday last, Rhoda Randall Davidson (represented by Mr. A. M. Salek), proceeded against her husband, James Morton Davidson, for the sum of £23, amount of maintenance alleged to be due under a court order. The husband petitioned for a variation or the order on the grounds that his wife had received money from him while she was living bigamously with a man named Mason, who is now doing six months' hard, for the said bigamy. Rhoda is now residing at the "Harniy*s" scrubbery where none but the vigorous are of any use . to the business. Rhoda got into the box and said that she was scrubbing her eternal soul into the pearly portals per medium of the 'Ome, and EXPIATING HER BIGAMOUS CRIME as per prescription of the Supreme Court. She told Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., that when her unloving "hubby" owed her £5 she had a warrant issued for his arrest and he was "haled." At the time of pleading she had no wealth at all. Her faco was her fortune and the "Harmy" had paid her car fare down to the court m order that sho could go on with the business. She had no money m the Post Ottlce, none m the Bank of New Zealand, no. nothing at aIL Sho Mtns destitute. Mr. O'Leary: Just afteV the Now Year you went through the form of marriage with a man named Mason? — Yes, on January 7. You received £13 through the court? —Yes. If your husband swears that he gave you £2 on the night previous to your bigamous marriage, ' will you admit it?— No. How - long -were you married to Mason? S.M. Cooper: That has nothing whatever to do with it. Mr. O'Leary: I say that it has, sir, under certain circumstances. (To witness) : YOU WERB ARRESTED FOR BIGAMY? —Yes. Mr. Salek: That has nothing to do with the case. Mr. O'Leary: I submit that it has. What sentence did you get? Mr. Salek: I object Ho is merely harassing tho woman. Mr, O'Leary: lam not I have a reason m asking. (To witness) : Ido not wish to unduly harass you. What is tho sentence?— lt Is indefinite, I am to Btay there until my health is good enough to got out And when will you get out?— Next week, maybe, or it may be this week. Are you keeping yourself now? — I'm m the Home. • But your work is paying for your keep there?— -I suppose it is. And you will bo able to keep yourself when you come out? — I don't knowt You admit that you got £13 through the court? — Yes. In reply to Mr. Salek, Rhoda said that her state of health was not of the best at the time of asking. On the previous Friday she was at ONE OF THE PIETY MEETINGS when she took a fit. Sho was subject to them before ever she heard the banging of tho holy "tain" or the terrible trombones. Mr. O'Leary submitted that she had committed adultery and was under the sentence of the Supreme Court and was being koj>t m tho "Salv'afmery" where sho earned her living that she could not possibly be destitute. He quoted the caso of McWHllains v. Mc- ! Williams, In which it was held that when a woman had COMMITTED A CRIME and was under sentence, that she could not claim maintenance from her husband, lie contended that u~ woman who was undergoing- sentence was not destitute, and ha claimed that his client should not bo called upon to pay the whole oC tho amount of the order. , . v James Morton Davidson, tho defendant, said that there had been an order made against him m August of last year, and that he had succumbed to un attack of "amoroso" some time ago, j matrimony supervening In June, 1912. ! when ho and Rhoda rodo a matrimonial 1 race to tho ttltar and tied. He had paid money Into tho court, and had paid her £2 on the night previous to tho counterfeit niarriago with Mr, Mason. Sho Bald that sho wanted tho two "Jims" to pny her faro down \o Iho South Island, and aft«.\r that ho j w tsß not to i»ay anything els© into th* ) court an ho might never hear from her ( again. lie had paid her £4 altogether j m cash apart from the court money. Before ho and Rhoda parted, her IwuUh had been fnlrly good, with ono exception, when she had done a spell m the hospital, which was m lUI2. Here Mr. Salok took up tho crossexamination reins AND STEERED FOR A WHILE. Wliness contended that ho could prove by letters of hera, which he held, that he had paid money to (he recalcitrant Khoda. One letter was to the

effect that she had been down south with Mr. nnd Mrs. Steele, but she could not stand them as they Included too much liquid refreshment In tholr menu. "I could not stay with Mr. and Mrs. Stoalc. as they got drunk." went tho letter. "They offered mo a billet In the South Island, but I would rather come back to Wellington, and if 1 come out will you jfivo mo the .£7 you owo me m arrears, and 1 will stick tv my promise and not trouble you again." j SO WENT THE EPISTLE. [Mr. Salek found that the letter had been handed to witness by a Mrs. Woolcott who had found It on Rhoda's table,' and that it had not been posted to him at all. He contended that, although Khoda had written it, ttho had never intended that it should get into his (her huubaud's) htwidaund that Hho !Md intended to destroy It. It was i dated January 18 (eleven day» after ; her second dip m the matrimonial bran tub). It w&s then computed that Rhode had enjoyed iuat seven weeks of second-hand matrimonial bllsw, nnd Mr. O'J^eary contended that, as she had been kept by tho man who wok now being -kept m gaol, she could not possibly be called a destitute person for that' period. Mr, Cooper maintained that lUioda was a destitute person and lhar tho order would have to be observed. Ho assessed tho Hum duo as being £11, the unloved hunband of Iho iwlo- < rln^etl llhotla to no to «aol for 14 days | If tho amount of £1 6/- per week was i not paid towards maintenance and ari rears, with solicitor's fee £ 1 J/-. On Uarning that Khoda's husband is due iti camp shortly, where' ho Is BOlnsj to train for a round or two with tho Hun», his Worship reiruced the amount [ by half-a-crown.