A STRANGE TALE

Patea Mail, Volume I, Issue 102, 1 April 1876, Page 3

A STRANGE TALE

A case recently heard at one of our Police Courts (says the “Sydney Mail”) was almost as full of incident as some of the three-volumod novels of a quarter of a century ago. It appeared that at Hammersmith, near London, in the year 1870, a lady and gentleman, whom we will cail Mr and Mrs Haiteh, plighted each to other their troth, and lived very happily together as husband and wife until the month of March, 1878, when Mr Haiteh left England for Canada, having first, by a deed of gift, settled upon "his wife the household furniture and other effects of the house in which she lived, of the value, it is said, of nearly £800; for some time they corresponded by every mail, her letters being couched in the most affectionate terms, but in process of time became cooler and cooler still, until at length she ceased to write at all. Mrs Haiteh, in order to make both ends meet, took in lodgers, and among others a young Australian gentleman, whom we may call Mr See, and between them an intimacy sprang up which accounted tor the coolness and ultimate cessation of Mrs Haitch’s correspondence with her husband, of which Mr Haiteh was apprised in Juno, 1874, by a letter from the lady’s father. As soon as possible after the receipt of this informationthat is, in August, 1875, Mr Haiteh left Canada for London, and on arrival there ascertained that his wife and Mr See had left England for Sydney as man and wife, taking with them (Mr Haitch’s) two children and the household goods* Anxious to recover his

wife and children, ho also took ship fdv Sydney, and arrived here on December 30. Mr See being a business man, there was no difficulty in discovering his whereabouts. Mr Haiteh wont before a justice, and, on oath, charged Mr See with having stolen a quantity of household furniture, of the value of £IOO and upwards, of which he (Mr See) was then in the use and enjoyment. The information disclosed neither the time when nor the place where the alleged stealing took place. The defendant was apprehended on warrant, and the case came on for hearing in duo course, each side attended by gentlemen learned in the law. Mr Haiteh detailed his wrongs—that he found his wife living with Mr See as his wife, and the furniture in the house was that, or portion of that, purchased by him and left in charge of Mrs Haiteh, in England, and was still his property. The attorney on the other side commenced his cross-examination of Mr Haiteh, by asking where the alleged offence was committed ; a question winch was objected to as improper to be put to the witness—as one involving a question of law as to the jurisdiction of the Justices, which the witness ought not to be called upon to answer. The sitting Justices, however, saw the importance of the question, and, after duly considering it in the light of the evidence, decided that the offence (if any) was not only conceived but consummated in England, and that consequently they, having no jurisdiction in the matter, had only to discharge defendant from custody. And so, at present, the affair stands.