CHARGE OF WIFE DESERTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 1970, 22 August 1889, Page 10

CHARGE OF WIFE DESERTION.

Thomas Alexander Colman was brought before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M., at the Resident Magistrate's Court on Friday, charged with that there was reasonable ground to believe that he intended to desert his wife, Jane Oolman, on the 15th inst., and he was therefore called upon to show cause why he should not support her. , Mr Sim appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Gallaway for defendant. Mr Sim said the proceedings were taken under section 16 of " The Destitute Persons Act 1887." The evidence he would call would satisfy his Worship that defendant intended to desert his wife. He had told his wife that Bhe could shift for herself, and had drawn £200 from the savings I bank. He told his boy that they were going to i Invercargiil and that he would never see his mother any more. Jane Colman, the plaintiff in the case, saiJ she and defendant had been married nearly 10 years. They had been living in Dunedin for about five weeks. Previous to that they lived near Oamaru. While in Dunedin they lived with Mrs M'Donald in King street. They had one child—a boy about eight and a-half years old. ! There had been several disputes since defendant ! came back from Southland, the principal cause of whioh was that he alleged that she was not careful enough in the housekeeping and had spent too much money. Defendant got up j early yesterday morning, and beat a little dog | most unmercifully. Witness went out and told j h'm to Jeave the dog alone. He nearly killed tbe dog that time, and as it gave a yelp or two a little while after he went out and killed it. He called witness names, and told her to separate her things, and that he would have nothing more to do with her. Witness said, " You will have to provide for me," but he said he would not, upon which witness said she would make him. He slapped witness, and she got up the poker and tongs and tried to defend herself. Witness went into another room, and she saw him leaving the house with the little boy. On goiug back into tbe other room witness found a truuk of her's filled with defendant's things tied and ready for going away. Wifcoees untied the box and took the things out. She then put on her things and went out, locking the door after her, and as she went away defendant came back. There was £200 in the Post Office Savings Bank, and the most of it belonged to witness. Defendant had often thrashed her, and they had been separated before for a few weeks. Witness had no means of her own. Cross-examined by Mr Gallaway: Witness had only been in service six months since marriage. She got some money from Home six or seven years ago, and she gave it to defendant for the use of the place they then had. The land was given them by witness' brother, and was afterwards sold for about £500, but there was a mortgage on it. Defendant was down South looking for a situation before*. He did not say on this occasion that he was going down to look at a piece of property at Woodstock. The prime cause of the disagreement was the housekeeping, and witness could show the book of the expenses. Mrs M'Donald said to defendant that he was a coward. He had been talking about going to Sydney in connection with shearing, but did not say where he was going on Thursday, and witness concluded he might be going there. Charles Stephens, connected with the Post; Office Sayings Bank, gave evidence &a to defendant drawing the £200 out of the bank. Witness had heard that they did not give him the money at first because there bad been a letter from Stout and Mondy objecting to it. Elizabeth M'Donald said the parties to the case rented a room in her house. There was a disturbance on Thursday,and the servant came in

and told witness that a dog had been killed. • Witness heard a scuffle in the room, and on going in saw that defendant had hold of plain- • tiff. He had a shovel in his hand, and said he was not going to let plaintiff knock him 'about. He said he would rather shoot himself than stay another day with her. Mr Gallaway having addressed the bench, evidence was given by defendant, who admitted that there had been a difference between them on Thursday last, and that he killed the dog. He was taking the boy because he meant to take up land and make a home. Witness gave evidence as to withdrawing the money from the Savings Bank. He had no intention of going to Sydney, and had no intention of deserting his wife. His Worship thought there waa reasonable ground to think that defendant intended to> desert his wife. Being an,apparently thrifty man, it looked strange his taking hia eon with him to see the land; and there was also the fact of his telling the boy that he would never see his mother again. He thought it was at great pity that the parties could not be recortciled. ... Mr Gallaway said it was a case of two people* losing their temper, and if his Worship woulcg adjourn it for a,week they might come to someunderstanding. Mr Sim pointed out that the money was safein the hands of the police, and defendant could not go away without it. It was finally agreed to let the case stand down for a time, and later on it was intimated that a settlement had been come to outside the court, and the case was withdrawn.