KAITANGATA COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16003, 20 February 1914, Page 2

KAITANGATA COURT.

TmmsnAY, FiiMtuAKsr 19. (Before Mr J. It. Bartholomew, S.M.) By-law Cases.— Joseph I'ilgrii)), sou., and .Joseph Pilgrim, jun., were ciiarged with allowing cattle to wander. —Mr fate wart appeared to piosoeule , and Air ur.gor lu deieud. Alter ovidouco n.s Worship uu.'idul to dismiss tno ciu*6.— --Joseph riigrim, .sen., was ohurgud, on a second iiiioiinuLion, wiui allowing cattle 10 wanner, and pleaded "Guilty."—A lino oi ijs was iuiposui, Witli costs (41s)

'1 wolvo months married. —JauetWorthley applied lor an order lor maintenance against her husband, William Janus bumnwheld Worthley, lor a separation order, «,u<l tor the custody of tho child. —Mr ytowart, who appeared lor complainant, said that tho parties had been married just about a year. The facts were that shortly after thoy were married defendant became very oilensivo in his manner towards complainant. Shortly alter July matters became very bad indeed. Defendant struck his wife when she was m a delicate condition, dragged her from one room to another, kicked her, and used offensive language to her. In July complainant lelt her liusband and wout to Her people, and defendant became very penitent. Complainant stayed at home for some weeks, butwa6 induced to return to her husband, who became just as bad as ever, and complainant again left her husband. Defendant then sold up alf his goods and cnattels and left Kaitangata. Ho also stopped his wife's credit by advertisement. Complainant, on being placed in the witness box, expressed a desire to withdraw tho application for tho separation order, but it was pointed out that it would bo difficult to make the one order without tho other, and it was agreed to hear the evidence before reducing tho application.—Mrs Worthley mentioned in the courso of her evidence that that day was the anniversary of her marriage.—Mr Grigor, who appeared for defendant, read a considerable quantity of correspondence that had passed between husband and wife, a good deal of which was not of a friendly description, and cross-examined witness as to it—Commenting on the correspondence Mr Grigor said: "And there is not one word in the correspondence that he ill-troatod you."—Constable Martin, Kaitangata, gave evidence that in July Worthley had called on him, and in conversation said that he had been struck by Mrs Worthley's brother for ill-treating his wife. Worthley had also said something about only having to hold his finger up to the magistrate and ho would got off, because ho wins a Mason. —His Worship: If that is his statement he must be a particularly poor Mason.—Cross-examined by Mr Grigor, witness said that Worthley had made some remark about there being a dispute on account of his wife not cleaning up the rooms. His reason for coming to witness was that he was afraid of being murdered by Mrs Worthley's brother.—Mary Jane Carson, mother of complainant, related at length how defendant had repentantly deseeched his wifo to return to him, and how on his knees he declared that he would lie low on the bottom of the Molyneaux if she did not come back.—Janet replied, "Well then I will always know where you arc." When complainant came home to her narents she had marks on her face caused through dc-

fondant's ill-treatment.—By Mr Grigoj: While complainant lived with her husband at Kaitangata witness never knew anything about the quarrelling and ill-treatment, and was not aware of it till her daughter came home in July.—Mr Grigor, in opening the case for the defence, contended that in the face of the correspondence, "\here was no evidence of cruelty on the part of defendant, and the only evidence on that point was that given by complainant, except for a romark by Mrs Carson about the daughter coming home with marks on her. There was reference in the letters that Mrs Worthley would not leave Kaitangata Counsel suggested that the mother-in-law had a lot to with the severances between husband and wife.—Defendant gave that there was only one dispute between himself ,and his wife from the time they got married till July. He had done the washing, scrubbing, and other house work, and they had been getting on well, till one day in July he had asked her to clean the room. She refused. There was a bit of a squabble, and complainant put on her coat and wont home. She sent for witness later on to come to her parents' home and take hor back, and she returned, but after that was always complaining of being lonely. Just before complainant went to her mother's the second time inOctober, he told Mrs Carson

that ho was going to remove, as Kaitangata did not suit his wife, and she said : "You can take yourself and your home away, but you'll never take rny lass." He was quite prepared to live with his wife, but l-.e did not pare to live in Kaijangata. Witness denied having ever struck his wife. Two days before last court day witness and his wife were riding along one night <>n their bicycles, when complainant stopped, put her .u-ras round his neck, and, taking off her "keeper" ring, gave it to him, saying, "Keep that, Bill, as a love token till I come back to you." Also, on Tuesday morning, his wife 'had told him that he and his child 'wore the only ones in the world for her. Ho used to hand all hia earn:ngs, £6 10s a fortnight, to his wife. Cross-examined by Mr Stewart, defendant denied having ever ill-treated his wife. He also denied having told Constable Martin that he had struck his .wife, and making a remark that he was all right, as he was a mason. He had put advertisements in the papers, stopping his wife's credit, in c»der to protect himself. His Worship allowed complainant to be recalled, in order that she could be examined as to the "keeper" ring. Mrs Worthley said that defendant had taken the engagement and "keeper" rings off her finger, and handed back the engagement r;ng, but would not give back the "keeper" ring. Witness said: "If it is of more use to you than me you can keep it." By His Worship: Her reason for rot going back to her disband was that she was afraid of him. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said the case was rather an extraordinary one. Both parties were young people, and seemed to be fond of each other, yet the woman said they could not live together. Tliat being so, he (Mr Bartholomew) must examine the evidence closely. Ho proceeded to review the evidence, and said complainant's evidence was in a measure supported by that of htr mother. Defendant contradicted the evidence of his wife and her mother, and that of Constable Martin. Ho (Mr Bartholomew) did not see that the correspondence discredited the wife's evidence, although there was no reference to cruelty in it He (His Worship) thought that possibly the wife had exaggerated what had occurred, but ho did not think she had spoken falsely. She had left her home on the first sion with some justification, and when she left the second time she was entitled to do so. He could not .say that she rad divided herself from her husband, and. that being so, she was entitled to maintenani'.e. The application for a separation order had not been pressed, so he would only an order for maintenance. He would *ix the maintenance at 30s a week, with costs (£2 2s).

Mr Bartholomew then held a civil sitting of the court, at which the following ca6cs were dealt with 1 : —

A. E. Farquhar (Mr Stewart) v. Chas. Fletcher, judgment by default for amount claimed, £7 12s Id (costs 18s 6d).

. John Todd, farmer (Mr Grigor) v. Thos. Gage, miner (Mr Stewart), claim £15, damages by reason of defendant's sheep trespassing on plaintiff's land at Wangaloa at various periods between April, 1912, and November, 1913. This case was partly heard at the January sitting. Peter Haggart, Wangaloa, gave evidence that there was

little grazing on plantuT's property. He would only pay 6d a year rental per acre for the open land.—His Worship said that taking everything into consideration, he thought £5 would bo a fair amount to allow for compensation. Judgment for £5, less £1 3s, paid into court, with costs amounting to £3. (Left sitting.)