WIFE OR MISTRESS?

NZ Truth, Issue 878, 23 September 1922, Page 5

WIFE OR MISTRESS?

"Without Benefit of the Clergy" . WEIRD STORY OF A STRANGE CLAIM. (From "Truth's" Christchurch Rep.) A most extraordinary story was told to Mr. Justice Adams m the Christchurch Supreme Court last week by a careworn and dejected woman of middle-age who, after thirteen years with a man, said She was deceived, and instead of being a .wife was A MERE DOMESTIC ACCESSORY. She' asked tlie Court to order the Public Trustee as the administrator of the estate of one Edward Elliott, to pay her £1189 alleged to have been earned by her during the years she had lived with. Elliott/ now deceased. The woman cut a pathetic figure as m a rather illiterate way she told her story of how she was deceived, and had worked m a , menial, way, handing over 'her hard-earned money to the man she believed to be her husband. Her name was Emma Frances Lewis, and she was now residing at New Brighton. Lawyer P. P. J. Amodeo held the ■woman's brief, and m outlining his case admitted his claim was an unusual one, but put. up a good fight for his unfortunate client. Counsel contended that plaintiff had lived 13 years with Elliott as his wife, but Elliott had fraudulently given her a ring which, it was claimed, he had persuaded the" woman to believe was sufficient to make them man and "Wife." It transpired later that the " deceiver* had a wife m the Old Country. Plaintiff's monetary claim was for '£168 as wages earned as a "slavey" at. the Hotel Clyde,, Rangiora; £338 as wages for housekeeping for 13 years at 10s a week; £676 for wages said to have been earned by the plaintiff and handed to "hubby" for her own outside work. There were other small items making up the full amount named m the statement of claim. - The defence pleaded by Lawyer O. T. J. Alpers, for the Public -Trustee, was one of concubinage and the Statute of Limitations. ..--..• v . When the unhappy woman went to the witness-box she looked a most DEJECTED AND SORROWFUL - OBJECT, breaking down frequently as she told some chapters of her unusual life's history. ' .. She said Elliott "picked her up" one day m the streets m Dunedin. In those days of her pare-free youth she did not stand much for ceremony, and didn't wait for a formal introduo-? tion. . Elliott asked her if she would be his housekeeper, .and she consonted. A little while later — witness Avas very vague m fixing a time — the "marriage" tobk place. His Honor*. What . did he say?— He said nothing. Tha'd never knoAvn him to speak to before. He arranged to pay me ten bob a weekWell, and what next?^He said Aye would get married, and he. pulled opt of his pocket a ring and a bit of paper. He asked me if I could write, and I said "No." He then said, "You'll be called Mrs. Elliott after this." That fixed it up. I said, "All right." '-.■- •' - r Lawyer Amodeo: After the marriage" lioav long did you live m Dime( ji n ?^_i don't know. We soon wept to Oamaru; and/ then to the Hotel Clyde. ;'-' ! Ho'av much 3i<l y°U earn there? — I have no idea. ■ ■ ... <> What wages were you getting .'-- Whatever it -was I never seen any of it! AH I done was me : own work, I feed his cats and dogs, cleans up the house and gets- his tea, and then do gome diggin'. „■ How about Elliott? What did he, <jp?— He never do a stitch of work all the time I was with him. Me husband TOOK ALL THE MONEY I earned off me, He waited at the gate and grabs it. I got 3s a half-day cleaning and ss,a full day. He got the lot. y , „ „ • Well, what else did you do?-r-Me husband then took on cows and I had to milk 'em after I come hqme from work of nights. Lawyer Amodeo: Did you really think you were, Mrs- Elliott?— Yes (and then tears began to flow profusely) — till the boy came out. Witness then, had to be given a respite to compose herself. Witness then gave a few sidelights on her early Tiustory. "I left school after I passed the Second Standard," and added: "I can write my signature only. I Avorked m a Dunedin factory when I met me husband.'' Miss Lewis was very insistent on telling about Elliott's capacity for DODGING HARP GRAFT. She declared: "He never did a stroke of Avork. I never seen him soil his hands all the time he was there? -He Avould Avait for me . and take all the money I got away from me. I couldn't stop him- He was . such a big powerful man. I then just had to do the diggin'; he didn't!" Your husband made his living on a small farm, not out of you?— Of course he did. Did he tell you he was getting money from England, from his mother, and that he was going to send for his boy? — Yes, he told me his wife Avas dead. Didn't he say as good as dead?— No, he didn't. . . . You Avent on living with him?— - Yes, I was called Mrs. Elliott and all that- But I didn't like it. I never said anything to the son. Did Elliott treat you Avell?—Sometimes HE WAS A^ DEVIL. | You thought Elliott would have made a will m your favour? Breaking into tears again, witness stammered out: "He — he— didn't — ■ have time." Lawyer Amodeo: Did Elliott eA'er strike you? — Yes. He used to give me a clout if I came home short of money. Hugh Lorgelly said he had known plaintiff as Mrs. Elliott. Elliott had said to him before he died, over a year ago, that he had not made a will, but added: "I mustn't leave the old girl out. I've put a few pounds m the saAdngs bank for her, but I Avant her to get a share out of the estate." For the defence Lawyer Alpers admitted the case presented some difficulty on account of the woman's IMPAIRED MENTALITY. The story of the deception m regard to the "marriage" and the ring was preposterous. Counsel contended the relationship between the parties Avas a mutual arrangement. The ring, had been used only as a camouflage to the "little world" they moved m. It had undoubtedly been the intention