SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3869, 8 May 1928, Page 52

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, May 1. ♦ (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) The quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were commenced yesterday at 10.30 a.m. GRAND JURY. The following grand jury was empanelled:—Percy Lewis Halsted, Herbert Frederick Sincock, Gordon Cossens, James Martin Samson, C. Russell Smith, James Louis Salmond, George Chance, James Gordon Diack Dempster, Gordon William Havelock Adams, Herbert Harraway, John Mitchell Alexander, Norton Oram, Richard Jamieson, Henry M’Dowell Smith, Robert Gorman, Garnet Wilkin, David Charles Stark, Francis Henry Lampen, George Craig Thomson, Cyril Henry Breeze. Mr Sincock was chosen foreman. HIS HONOR’S CHARGE. In his address to the grand jury his Honor said that there was only one case to occupy its attention, and it should not have any difficulty, he thought, in coming to a conclusion in this case that a true bill should be brought against the accused. The accused, William Hassett, was charged on four counts —that he attempted to murder Charles Arthur Lloyd, that he wounded him with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, that he assaulted him so as to cause him actual bodily harm; and, fourthly, that he did cause him bodily harm in such circumstances that if death had been caused he would have been guilty of manslaughter. His Honor read the statement of Lloyd in which he stated that he was 22 years of age, and -was employed by the Public Works Department as a motor driver, and resided at North Balclutha. On Sunday, April 15, he had visited Milton and met a Miss MHardy, both in the afternoon and evening. On the latter occasion he took Miss M’Hardy in a motor car_ to Mr Curran’s residence at about 7.45 p.m. He did not go into the house, but arranged to meet her with the ear at about 10_ p.m. He returned to Curran’s about 9.50 p.m., and there he saw the accused. After some conversation Hassett, nad asked “ Are you waiting for anyone,”,and he (Lloyd) replied: “ I am, are you?” Hassett replied “No, I’m not.” Nothing further was said for a couple of minutes, when Hassett grabbed him by the collar with his left hand and produced a knife in his right. Hassett then said ’lni waiting for vou, you ” The statement went on to say that Lloyd aid not see the knife very clearly, but that when he saw it it was half opened. Hassett opened the knife on his ri-dit leg He grabbed Hassett’s right hand°to endeavour to get possession of the knife and this cut the top of the middle finger of his right hand. He did not get nossession of the knife, but caught Hassett by the leg and threw him on the footpath. Dhen Hassett was falling he (Lloyd) felt the knife sticking into his abdomen. He aid not fall on the ground nor did he fall on the knife. He grabbed hold of Hassetts hand which held the knife. It was a medium-sized pocket knife. Hassett was then lying on the ground, and he held hini until he felt he was getting weaker. Atiss 31 Hardy came o n the scene, and he sent her for assistance. He then let Hassett go, and ran away towards Curran s Hassett running in the opposite direction. Lloyd’s statement went on to say that he had had his wounds dressed by Dr Edgar, and he was taken to the hospital. ' That is the statement of Lloyd,” said ms Honor, ” and it is corroborated by other witnesses According to that stoiy the accused deliberately attacked Llovd and stabbed him, and he thought that on die evidence the grand jur v would be quite justified in bringing in a true bill.” the grand jury returned after an absence of 20 minutes with a true bill on all the counts. MILTON STABBING CASE. \\ illiam Hassett was charged wita having, on or about April 15, at Milton attempted to murder Charles Arthur Bloya A second count charged the accused • avln o wounded Lloyd with intent to do him gr.evous bodily harm, a third with having assaulted Lloyd so as to cause him actual bodily harm, and a fourth with having caused actual bodily harm to Lloyd under such circumstances that if death had been caused he would have been guiltv of manslaughter. , Adanls conducted the case for t-ne Crown, and the accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended b- Mr C J 1 White. Mr .Adams said it was not necessary to find tne accused guilt v on more than one count of the indictment. The Crown In vited the jury to convict the accused on the first count, taking the view that the intention was to murder Lloyd. In the second count a particular intention was required, but not the intention to kill that was inquired under the first count In connection with the third count. s o f ar as intention w as concerned all that the jury had to be satisfied about was that it was an intentional assault and not that there was an v intention to inflict harm at all. He would explain later on why the fourth count t was included in the indictment. The accused had been koepimcompany for a time with Miss M’Hardy” who subsequently appeared to have taken up with Lloyd. The accused persisted in his attentions, and it appeared from what, the girl had stated in her evidence that he had made threats against her and anyone in whose company he might find her On April 15 Lloyd was with Miss MPardv’ and early in the afternoon he took her to Curran’s house, where she had an appointment, and promised to return there about 10 p.m. At 7.30 p.m. the accused called on a local chemist named Fraser, who supplied him with a drink of peppermint ana water. At that time the accused was perfectly sober and sensible. At 9 o’clock the accused was seen by two men named Lockhart and Whytock at Curran's gate, and he was then quite sober. These two men said they saw the accused take a knife from hi s pocket, open it, close it again, and put it back in his pocket. When Lloyd returned to Curran’s

ne and the accused exchanged good nights, after which a conversation led up to the accused saying “ I am waiting for you and springing on Lloyd with a partly-opened knife in his hand. It was fortunate for Lloyd that he was active and able to defend himself. Before Lloyd reached the ground the knife in Hassett’s hand had been plunged into hi s abdomen, Tk " e a,so bad tt small cut on one finger lhe medical evidence showed that if the knife had taken a different direction the result would have been fatal in about 30see The evidence would show beyond a shadow of doubt that tho accused assaulted and wounded Lloyd; and the question for tho jury to decide was which of the four counts it would convict him on. A suggestion had been made by the accused that he had been drinking heavily And that he had been given “dope;” but ho said that it was only peppermint and water. The accused .was sober at (.30 p.m. and at 9 p.m. and there was no reason to believe that he had had drink between 9 o’clock and 10 o’clock. Evidence on the lines given at the preliminary helping was then tendered. A” xi. art^ress , to, the jury, Mr White stated tfiat m the lower court at Milten tho Crown had abandoned the attempted murder charge, but had now taken it up •gain. lhe Crown brought all these elaborate charges in the hope that it would convict the accused on one of the counts Mr White went on to deal with the facts as disclosed by the evidence. He stated that it was while Lloyd and the accused were in the act of falling that the knife entered Lloyd’s stomach, and in view of that admission could anyone say conclu sively that the knife was put iu by- the agency of H-.ssett? The wound was of a nature that would be inflicted accidentally during a scuffle and during a fall. What motive could the Crown suggest for an attempt by Hassett to murder Llovd? He thought the jury would hesitate before it accepted the Crown’s version of what took place. Everything suggested that the events had happened 'as stated by the ac cused.

Mr Adams, in addressing the jury, said that he, as Crown Prosecutor, had reinstated the charge of attempted murder, and it was left to the jury to decide on what grounds it would decide to convict —if it did convict. Hassett had lied to the police, and had contradicted his previous statement in tho box that day. Hassett had had the opportunity of telling the truth, but he had not taken it, and it was only that day that he came into the box and told his story. Under the circumstances he asked them to believe that it had the hallmark of suspicion. Accused had admitted to making threats, although he denied that he made a statement regarding ‘‘ two funerals.” The crucial fact was the statement by Lloyd and Miss M’Hardy that Hassett had said, ‘ I am waiting for you,’’ and if the accused said those words and was advancing on Llovd with a pocket knife, could the jury have any doubt on his intention. Mr Adams referred at some length to the question of the opening of the knife, and said the statement, of accused that he was trying to close the khife on his leg. when he cut his trousers, was entirely inconsistent with what would actually occur. To close the knife one would press the bacn of the blade against one’s leg, not the sharp part of the blade. Counsel exhibited T.loyd’s clothing and asked if were possible that the cuts in it could be caused in an accidental way. The chemist was friendly with the accused, and he said that he was quite sober. There was no evidence whatever of the accused being drunk His Honor, in summing up, /aid there were four counts in the indictment. He quoted the law regarding the punishment. on conviction, on each of the charges, and said the jury had to be satisfied that the accused should be convicted, and then on what charge. It was clear that tire wounds must have been caused by Hassett's knife, and while it was in his hand. The jury had to say whether the wound in the abdomen was intentionally or accidentally caused. There might be a doubt about the wound to the finger, but. as regarded the more serious wound, the Crown held that it could not have been accidentally caused. His Honor quoted from the evidence, and said that there was no doubt Lloyd had received a serious wound. In view of all the’ evidence on the subject, and in view of the admissions macKe by the accused himself, it seemed absurd to talk about the accused being drunk. He might have been suffering from a recovery, but to talk about this man being drunk, after doing what the witnesses said he did, and behaving as he did, was simply an insult to their intelligence. Dealing with the evidence regarding the knife, his Honor asked why was the accused opening and shutting the knife, and why was he playing with it in this way? Did it not suggest that he was tinning over in his mind the question of using the knife later? His Honor quoted further from the evidence, and asked was it likely that the accused would be standing for three-quarters of an hour at Curran’s gate only paring his nails, when Lloyd appeared on the scene? The Crown asked them to believe that Hassett was waiting for Lloyd. On Hassett’s own evidence it was shown that he began the affray by nutting his hand out and grabbing Lloyd by the tie. This was an assault in itself, and Lloyd suffered an injury by the assault—lie was injured with a knife. On that evidence alone the accused should be convicted on the third count. The accused had said that he had not the slightest knowledge that he had done anj- harm, but why had he thrown the knife away? His Honor suggested that on the accused’s own version lie brought himself within the section of the Act. regarding the third count, because he begin the affray. Whether the injuries had been caused accidentally or not did not matter. There was no doubt but that they had been caused to Lloyd in the course of the assault made on Lloyd, and through the accused having the open knife in his hand. At least the jury ought to convict on the third count. His Honor said if the jury convicted he thought it should convict on the first, second, and third counts, and not on the fourth. His Honor concluded his summing up by quoting the law regarding the defence of drunkenness. The jury retired at 5.32 p.m. and returned at 6.5 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on the third count. Mr White said that the accused bad borne a most excellent character up to now. He came of a well-known Milton family, and had lived there for a considerable period. He had entered into the

public life of Milton, and had been through chairs of lodges and had served on difterent executives. Unfortunately during the past two or three years the accused appeared to have been an addict to drink Counsel said he would like his llonor to read some letters which had been written to the accused lately by the young lady, and which did not coincide tt l - tJ" evidence . given that day. His Honor, having looked over the letere, said that the jury had acquitted the » any e X i - 1 inten t- question was whether on his record he should be released on probation. The accused would be remanded to Friday morning to enbC the TERM OF PROBATION GRANTED. M hen TV illiam Hassett, who was convicted of asasult in the recent Milton stabbing case, appeared before Mr Justice Sim, in the Supreme Court on I’riday morning, he was admitted to probation for three years. Mr C. J. L. White, who appeared for the prisoner, said that he had been engaged in the taxi business, and had lost heavily. He was now paying periodical sums in settlement of his debts. He had been prohibited, the order having been taken out voluntarily by himself while in .Milton. He had a brother who was living in the North Island, and it was his intention, if the court saw fit to grant probation, to go and live with the brother. For the Crown, Mr F. B. Adams said that if the court saw fit to grant probation the accused should be required to make restitution to the injured man, in view of the financial loss that he had suffered. His Honor: Has he suffered any pecuniary loss? Mr Adams: He was obliged to leave his work, and was in the hospital for 13 days. His Honor said that the jury had acquitted the prisoner of any intent to murder or do bodily harm to the complainant, but the verdict did not necessarily negative an intention on his part to use the knife. The use of the knife was the act of a cowardly ruffian, notwithstanding the fact that the character of the accused did not seem so bad as his action that night would suggest Doubtless, he was suffering from drink and jealousy. In view -f the circumstances, the court was justified in extending to the accused the benefit of the Probation Act. Hassett was admitted to probation for three years, and was ordered to abstain from drinking alcoholic liquor, and to renew his prohibition order from time to time. He was also ordered to pay £7 each year towards the cost of the prosecution, and reside elsewhere than in Otago if the probation officer so desired. Lastly, he was ordered to pay Charles Aithur Lloyd full compensation for the pecuniary loss he had suffered f.s a result of the assault. “ You understand,” said his Honor, addiessing the prisoner, “ that if you do not comply with the terms of your probation order you may be senteueed to a term of imprisonment for three years, with hard labour.” PRISONERS SENTENCED. CHEQUE FORGERIES. Albert Foster Smelt, who had pleaded guilty in the lower court to a charge of having, on April 3. at Dunedin, forged lhe name of F. G. A. Stuckey to a cheque for £2O 10s, knowing it to be false, and with the intention that it should b? acted upon as if it were genuine, and also to a charge of having, on April 19, at Dunedin, forged the name of Ernest C. Brunson to a cheque for £65, knowing it to be false, and with the intention that it should be acted upon as if it were genuine. The Prisoner stated that he had nothing to say. His Honor said that Smelt had six previous convictions, beginning in 1922. Mr Adams said there was practically a continuous series. His Honor: He has been doing practically nothin" but committing offences since he was at liberty in 1922. If his record is correct he has on ’ «od for declaration as an habitual criminal. The list oi con. ...us was shown to Sn’elt, who admitted that it was correct His Honor said the prisoner had qualified to be declared an habitual criminal. On each charge he would be sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour, the sentences to be concurrent. As part of the sentence on the first charge, he would be declared an habitual criminal. THEFT OF MONEY. James Simpson Thompson appeared for •entenee on a charge of having, on August 26, 1927. and on divers dates between that time and February 1, 1928. received from divers persons sums of money totalling £74 0s 3d on terms requiring him to account for them to William Wright, and with having fraudulently omitted to do so, thereby committing theft. The Prisoner stated that he had nothing to say. Mr Adams said he thought that all the facts were in the report before his Honor. His Honor said that according to the police report the prisoner had robbed a previous employer. He owed the first employer £45 and stole £74 to repay it. The probation officer did not recommend probation, and according to the police report Thompson had been given to drinking and betting on horse races since he was 18 years of age. He was now nearly 23 years old. He thought the best thing for the prisoner would be a course of reformative detention, and he would therefore be ordered to be detained for reformative purposes for three years. YOUTHFUL CRIMINALS. Allan Rupert Barnett, William HenryMartin, John M’Gregor Wilson, and Alfred Edward Arundale, who had pleaded guilty in the lower court to a charge that on July 7, 1927, they had bl'oken and' en-

tered the premises of John Nevis Allan Cameron by night and stolen goods to the value of £43 2s 9d, came up for sentence. Barnett and Martin had also pleaded guilty to, on November 1, 1926, breaking and entering the premises of John Nevis Allan Cameron and stealing goods of the value of £52 15s 6d, and on January, 1927, of stealing goods from the same premises of a value of £3O 8s 6d. Mr B. 8. Irwin appeared for Barnett and Mr C. J. L. White for the other three prisoners. Counsel addressed his Honor on behalf of the accused. His Honor said that so far as'Barnett and Martin were concerned, it was not necessary for him to inflict any further punishment. They were now serving a term of reformative treatment. Barnett would be sentenced to a similar term of reformative treatment to that which he was now serving—five years—to be concurrent with his existing sentence, and Martin to three years’ reformative treatment, to be concurrernt with his existing term of three years. So far as Wilson and Arundale were concerned the difficulty was that the probation officer was unfavourable in both his reports, particularly in the case of Arundale. He felt disposed in the case of Wilson to view his conduct as not so bad as the probation officer viewed it. He was 20 years of age, and lived with his widowed mother. He might, under the circumstances, have not had sufficient parental control. His Honor read the probation officer's report, in which he said he had warned Wilson regarding hie drunken habits, and stated that he could not recommend another term of probation. Under the circumstances he thought he was justified in giving Wilson another chance. He would be admitted to probation for three years, one of the conditions being that he must take out a prohibition order and pay £5 towards the cost of the prosecution within three months. The probation officer’s report regarding Arundale was so unfavourab«e that he thought it was best that he should go to the Borstal Institute, as was recommended by the probation officer. His home control had apparently been rather w r eak, and he had resented any effort on the part of his parents to guide him. He had associated with undesirable companions, had attended dances, and had created disturbances, under the circumstances it would not be right to grant probation. He would be sent to the Borstal Institute for a term of three years. Wilson had better understand that if he did not take advantage of the present chance and misbehaved himself in any way. he would land himself in the Borstal Institute too, or be sentenced to a term of reformative detention. “ So he had better mend bis ways,’" concluded his Honor. YOUNG MAN SENTENCED. DECLARED AN HABITUAL CRIMINAL. Tn the Supreme Court on Friday morning, before Mr Justice Sim, Thomas Edward Preston appeared for sentence on eight charges of forgery of cheques. Mr C. J. L. White, who appeared on behalf of the prisoner, outlined his previous convictions, and said that, as his Honor could see from the depositions, they had arisen from offences of a stupid nature. He was arrested on a charge of vagrancy, and later sent to a mental hospital. After he had been discharged from the hospital he had secured a position where his work was perfectly satisfactory until he discovered the great advantages of that wonderful invention—the cheque book. He had been sent for a book, and had secured another for himself. Finding himself equipped with the key of a veritable El Dorado, he indulged in an orgy of forgery. Most of the signatures were very clumsily written, and for the majority he had secured goods, much of which had been recovered. Fcr the Crown, Mr F. B. Adams said that several of the cheques had been cashed by the bank. Mr White added that there* was no doubt that the prisoner was sub-normal. He was aware that the court would not consider the granting of probation, but he appealed for the greatest possible leniency in view of the circumstances of the case. Dr Gribbon, of the Seacliff Mental Hospital, in a statement to the court, said that Preston might have been subnormal while at the hospital, but he was not mentally certifiable. His Honor said that the best policy to be adopted with the prisoner was to declare him an habitual criminal. On each of the eight charges he would be sentenced to imprisonment, the sentence to be served concurrently, and on the last charge—that dated April 2—he would be declared an habitual criminal. THE TIMARU SESSIONS. ’ TIMARU, May 4. At the Supreme Court Mr Justice Adams imposed the following sentences: —William Howard Rumble, common assault, probation for two years, the prisoner to abstain from liquor and cigarettes ; John Morgans, common assault, two months’ imprisonment. i PRISONERS SENTENCED. WELLINGTON, May 2. In the Supreme Court to-day a number of prisoners was sentenced. Leonard Henry England, aged 40, a painter, and Edwin Valentine Shramba, aged 34, a labourer, were brought up on charges of breaking and entering and theft. England was admitted to probation for two years, and Shramba was ordered three months’ probation. Robert Patrick Crawford, aged 20, for theft as a servant, was ordered two years’ detention in the Borstal Institute. Ronald Edward Morrison, aged 17, a labourer, for breaking and entering and theft, and for attempted theft, was stal Institute. ordered four years’ detention in the Bor-

Michael Patrick Anthoney Herlihy, aged 22, for breaking and entering and theft, was placed on probation for two years. Donald Gillies, aged 31, and John George Furey, aged 19, were brought up on charges of conspiring to defraud. The former was sentenced to two years in gaol, and the latter was given two years’ detention in the Borstal Institute. William Alma Robertson, aged 34, a labourer, for forgery and uttering, received 12 months’ improsonment. Sydney Lambert Roach, for bigamy, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Trevor Leonard Richard Cunningham, aged 28, a taxi driver, for theft was given one year’s imprisonment. IN BANKRUPTCY. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE. HUGH REID. Mr W. L. Moore applied, on behalf of Hugh Reid, for a discharge from bankruptcy. In answer to his Honor, Mr Moore said that the creditors had not got anything. The bankrupt had been a motor carrier, but had had the misfortune to lose one motor -lorry by fire and another had turned out useless. The car he had lost by fire had cost him £I4OO. The bankrupt was a married man, between 50 and 60 years of age. The creditors were very sympathetic tn the bankrupt. He had given them all the information they desired in a straightforward manner. His Honor: Cannot he do anything for his creditors? Mr Moore replied in the negative. His Honor made an order of discharge. ALBERT BRIGGS STEWART. Mr O. Howells applied, on behalf of Albert Briggs Stewart (Central Otago) for an order of discharge from bankruptcy. His Honor said he saw from the official assignee s statement that the bankrupt when he had filed had no assets at all. Mr Howells said that was so. His Honor: Why did he file? Mr Howells: He was at a dead end. His Honor: Yes, and wanted to get whitewashed. He had no assets. I am not going to grant a discharge in a ease like that. Mr Howells said that Stewart had been a victim oj; the slump in 1922. He was in exceedingly bad health. His Honor: He was a victim of the slump m 1922, when he had some assets. Mr Howells said bankrunt was endeavouring to meet his creditors and pay something. His Honor said he was not going to grant a discharge. He would refuse to do so where people filed under these circumstances. Mr Howells: I have several letters His Honor: I don’t care whether you have letters. It would be an abuse of the bankruptcy procedure to grant a discharge MILLIAM HENRY BUTLER. Mr C. J. L. White appeared in support of an application for discharge by William Henry Butler. Mr C. J. Payne appeared for several creditors. His Honor said this was another ca c e where a man had filed who had no assets. Mr White said that at the meeting of creditors an offer to pay 2s 6d in the £ had been accepted. It was explained by Mr Payne that (he creditors had agreed to accept judgment of £l6O, provided that Mrs Butler did not participate in the judgment. The position was that she bad advanced £7OO to her husband's business, and she had proved for £7OO. Mr s Butler, however, was not entitled to participate until rhe creditors were paid in full. His Honor: Well, it doesn’t matter very much about her then. His Honor added that he noticed that Mr Butler was peti tinning for a divorce from his wife Mr Payne said that the £l6O would probably return 5s in the £, if the wife’s claim were not included. If she had been allowed to participate the £l6O would only return 2= 6d. His Honor said it seemed clear that the wife was not entitled to obtain the advances she had made to her husband An order would be made for discharge conditional on the bankrupt consentin’*’ to pay £l6O. IN DIVORCE. In the Supreme Court on Friday morning, before his Honour, Mr Justice Sim. decrees nisi were granted in the following undefended petitions for divorce:— HODGE v. HODGE. Herbert Hodge (Mr E. J. Smith) petitioned for divoree from Agnes Hodge on the grounds of desertion. For the petitioner, Mr Smith said that the respondent had no intention of opposing the petition. In evidence, the Petitioner stated that he was a fitter, at present residing in Wellington. Tie was married in the registry office in Dunedin in 1914, and lived happily with his wife for three years. They had two children. In October, 1917, the witness came home one afternoon and found that his wife had gone. Later he discovered that she was.in Wellington, and when he wrote to her she returned and stayed with him and his mother for three weeks. However, she seemed dissatisfied, and in a few weeks she disappeared once more. Witness had only spoken to his wife once, and on that occasion he informed her that he intended to obtain a divorce. She replied, “ I wonder that you have not done so long ago.” Evidence corroborating that of the petitioner was given by his sister. . A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted. CAMPBELL v. CAMPBELL. William Miller Campbell (Mr T. O’Shea) petitioned for divorce from his wife, Laura Ellen Campbell, on the grounds of desertion. In his evidence, the Petitioner said that he was a baker, and had been married in 1909. Until 1915, when he left New Zealand as a baker on a troopship, his relations with his wife were prefectly harmonious. He saw her from time to time,

but in January, 1919, when he returned to Port Chalmers on the Tahiti, she was not on the wharf to meet him. He proceeded to the house where she was staying, and. found that she had left Dunedin. The matter was placed in the hands of a detective, who found that she had gone to Christchurch with another man. He had visited Christchurch, but his wife refused to return, and he brought his daughter back to Dunedin. Their two children were living in Dunedin with a sister of witness.

Corroborative evidence was given by the petitioner’s sister, who said that the children had been living with her for some years. Their mother visited them once a year.

A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. INGLE v. INGLE. Alma Elspeth Ingle (Mr A. C. Hanlon) petitioned for divorce from her husband, Norman Augustus Ingle, on the grounds of mutual separation. The Petitioner said that she was married in Dunedin and resided with her husband until 1922, when he was arrested. In consequence of his trouble, she subsequently refused to live with him, and a mutual deed of separation was entered into.

The evidence of the previous witness was corroborated by the brother of the petitioner, and a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. WEBB v. WEBB.

Elizabeth Webb (Mr B. S. Irwin) petitioned for divorce from William Herbert Webb on the grounds of mutual separation.

In evidence, the Petitioner said that she was married in 1911, but her married life was unsatisfactory because of her husband’s habits, and in 1922 she secured a separation order against him. . Evidence, corroborating that of the previous witness, was given by a sister of the petitioner.

A decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted.