SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 15089, 11 December 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

DOMESTIC TROUBLES.

[ In tho Supremo Court yesterday afternoon his Honor Mr Justice Chapman dealt with a case which was somej what of an unusual type m which ! Amelia Bertha Baigent (Mr Mainn) proceeded against Leon Hfem Baigent (Mr | Burnard) for a. claim for specific performance and m connection with which venue was changed from New Plymouth. His Honor asked first of all if the case could not be settled between the parties without having the circumstances ventilated m a public Court, Mr Mann said he had not considered that matter, but waß of the same opinioni as his Honor. Mr Burnard pointed out that he did not tlifcnk at this stage a consultation would do any good. Mr Mann said the parties wero married 12- years ago, and there was a child seven years of age as a result of the marriage. Defendant went to camp m October until November, and trouble arose between, the parties. Defendant was cruel to plaintiff and the child. Mr Burnard objected to tin's evidence , being submitted! as irrelevant, and his Honor \ipheld this contention. Mr Mann pointed out that hi order to prevent proceedings a deed of separation was entered into, and he wished to acquaint his Honor with, the circumstances leading; up to it. If defendant admitted the deed of agreement Mr Burnard : We are not making any admissions, but you can start there. Mr Mann : Assuming the agreement is admitted I will proceed* The child, as required by the provisions of t the agreement, was placed m a reputable boarding; school. Under clause 7 and 8 both parties were to have proper access to the child. In the first term of the school the plaintiff only had the child with her for one hour. The Christmas holidays were approaching, and the part'es were annious to know what the positron should be when the child bad his 'Christmas holidaye. Amelia Bertha Baigent, plaintiff, said that the agreement was entered into on June 6 and for two months she did not know of the child's whereabouts. She was then living 1 m Hawera, and came to QFsborne to be near the child. Witness went to the school to see the child. Witness snw defendant the same clay m the drawing room at the school. Witness asked her husbamd about the agreement, and whether she was to have him (the child) over the alternative week-ends, and he replied, "No; they are not the holidays of the school." He sad witness had no right m Gisborne, and that she -would never pet Claude m Gisborne, and could only have h) : m for the spring holidays if his lawyer was agreeable. Witness saw tho boy that afternoon. Defendant threatened to put the police on to witness if she did not keep away from the school. At a later date witness invited 1 defendant to have a further talk on the matter, and the^ arranged to meet on Adair's corner. They did so, and she suggested they should go to the tea rooms . He replied, "Oh, no ; I am waiting for , a policeman who I want to' be present." Mr Mann : Ho was tryilng to bluff you?— Yes. I suppose so. Continuint?. witness several times approached defendant for permission to see the boy. but he never seemed agreenble. , "On the occasion previously referred to, witness produced the agreement and defendant replied, "That is no use to you." Later, defendant threatened to take the child away where witness would never see it. if she did not keep away. On Mr Mann's advice witness went to defendant's solicitor's office Mr Burnard : I object to that, your Honor. The visit was without -prejudice. His Honor : Yes, m the endeavor to briwr about a settlement. Witness, continuing-, said she was trivcm permission! to take the boy to church on Sundays for an hour. Witness took him to church one day and when she called on the next occasion defendant refused permission,, saying that the child had been ill ever since he last went out with her. Witness reminded him about the agreement, and he replied, "I only signed that to suit my own convenience. You are only a 'tiling,' not a woman." The first term holidays fell on August Ist, but witness was not allowed to have the child. Defendant sard she (plaintiff) would have to return to Hawera, and if defendant's solicitor was agreeable witness? could have, the child m her care for ii few days. When witness returned «he received a letter to call on Mr Weir (solicitor to defendant), which she did. "Witness was asked to sign a bond .undertaking 1 to return the child within 10 days, and also that she was not to go to Gisborne. Witness refused to sign the paper, and took legal advice. Ai- tho time witness d'd not know whether the boy was back* m Gisborne. but on learning ho was, she returned to this?Uown, and she was only permitted fco se^ the child on Wednesdays if it suited tn'e, lady who conducted the school. Witness complained that all her endeavors to see" the child 1 were baulked, and she wanted the position cleared m view of the forthcoming holidays. Mr Burnarpl: Was not that proposition made to you as a concession ?— el refused the terms. « • At first you got on quite well? — Indifferently up to the timo he went to. camp. When he returned from camp did you not say there was another man's spirit tin union with yours? — No. And you refused to cohabit with him? —Yes. . While ho was m camp you received It's money, but refused to 1 share his room with him ?^— Yes. Did you not assign the reason to the fact that you were infatuated with some other man? — No. Did you not pursue a certain man with your AUentions? — I liked both him aftd liis Avife. Did you not say he was the man spirit which was m accord with yours? — No. Defendant accused mo of receiving things from the man referred to. Mr Burnard : Did you not pursue him with flowers? — I gave them to his wife. Do you remember when ho was ill with influenza? — Yes. He went to the Mountain House.? — Yes. His wife did not accompany him?— No. You telephoned the proprietor and asked him for a room? — Yes. It was only -because the gentleman referred . to was m the telephone room at the timo that it was refused ?-~»So I was informed by defendant. They replied there was no room? — They said thero was. « What did you do'? — I telephoned his wife and asked her to go with' mo. What did she say? — She said she was sorry she could not go, as she was busy packing, but she did not object to my going. Arei you not an admirer of his?: — No. Why did you refuse to resume marital relations with defendant on his return from oamp? — He treated me as a housekeeper. In a letter written from camp, altliough generally of an affec--1 ionate nature, he said I was only a housekeeper, and it must bo hard for men leaving true wives. 'Where is th* letter?— l left it m the house; I suppose M is burned now. Did you 1 occupy the same room as defendant beforo his going to camp? — Not the last month. Why?— Because of my health-, and that of my son. You gave defendant as your reason for not living with him that he had called you his housekeeper? — Yes. Novy, I put it to you; did you not tell him you were m love with someone else? — No. When' tlie trouble over the child 1 [occurred you said the child was unwell • and not fit to go to school? — Not then. I Have you aiot saidi bo Binco m Gfis-borne?—-No. I Did you not take the child to Dr. Scott for examination, and tell him it was a delicate child? — No. j If Dr. Williams and Dr. Scotb say the child ig quite a normal, healthy child what would you say?— He has improved, then. . *■ • Yes, since he left you?— l took the child 1 to a doctor m fcaponga, and he said the child was aU right.

Did not defendant tell 5 r ° v the school proprietress wanted him to see the police and have your continual visits stopped ? — Yoa. You complained that the child was getting no religious education? — Yes. It, was arranged you should have the child on Sunday mornings?— l under, stood so. What church do you attend ?— Church of England. Tho Coui't i'oso at 6 p.m., and 1 adjourned until 10 a.m. today. When the Coui't resumed, this mornrittg- plaintiff was further cross-examined by Mr Burriard arid said that defendant's solicitor had told her that the bond was required m case witness should bolt with the child, when the money would be needed to obtain tho return of the child. Mr Burnard: What do you think of defendant? — I don't think he is much class. Why ?— He tried to murder me for one thing, and left me for dead, Wliere? — In the house. You halo and despise him? — I do, because of the way he* treated me. When I went to nurse ray mother at Hawera and asked him to "go, he said, "Go to blades." Your mother has had frequent finesses affecting her mmd? — And body also. Is it not a matter of fact that you will do anything to annoy him? — Not if h© would give mo tho child. Your people have means, I beMeve? Yea. ' , Your husband has not? — He says so. You are not doincj the child any good by going on like this?— Quite as much as his father is. You know the father's sister? I used to. She has a good home for the "cHild over the week-ends? — Our opinions differ. , What have you against her? — She came to mv house shortly after we were married, and said she had as much right m the -house as I had. What else have you against her? — She has no religious education, and if she has she does not show it. The child is young yet? — He has been to church ever since he was born. Didn't you c^all him a brute?— Yes, when he went and told the banker over the road that •'he had knocked the hide out of the migsus." By Mr Mann : Witness had never contemplated boltiug with tho child. Defendant assaulted witness m February. 1919, and witness had not (been well since. The dispute arose over the child, who witness stated was ill. Witness left the house about a week after the assault. Just prior to that defendant came into witness' room and threatened that if she had not a doctor's certificate ja3 to her health he would murder her. Witness left'the house after that/ Mr Burriard: You were assaulted by your husband m February?— Yes. And it was May before any proceedings were taken respecting it ?' — N.o April. < • ' Mr Burnard contended that there had been no proof of any breach of the agreement. 'Because defendant had said that, plaintiff would never see the child with his approval it did not constitute a bar to plaintiff's access to the child. He submitted that the school holidays did not include Sundays. The claim w.a s of a type of action m which the Court would find difficulty to enforce its decree. The area of action of the case was outside that which the Court could specifically enforce. John W. Weir solicitor, residing at .Kltham, said defendant consulted ' him about March or April concerning his troubles, and eventually the agreement m question was arrived at. In September witness wrote a letter asking plaintiff to call on him. Plaintiff and defendant came m together to the office. The child had -been on holiday, and the lather had him for a week," so witness promised the plaintiff to have the child on the condition that he would be re- 1 jHi ned .. in time to resume school. Plaintiff said, "Oh, he might.be ill." Witness said, ''Assuming he is well, will you return him?" a nd she replied, "No, I will please myself what I shall do with him. Witness pointed out that he would not accept, the answer /'that she would really have no difficult* about the conditions to be laid dowm^ #&*■ child would be given *f she would promise to return the child (before the school re- 1 opened^ and if a bond was entered into for £60 to £100 to be used m. the event ?Vs° , c . hlld bei »g spirited away. Plaintitf declined to accept the conditions and became very excited, and at length he was obliged to aslc her to leave the office. Witness knew the parties, and said that at first they were looked upon as highly desirable citizens, and later detendant began to "hear himself discussed consequent on the action? of the wife. Witness knew that another person had to mort to strategy ta "dodge 0 ' tho attentions of the plaintiff , - _ Inez Aylmcr m charge of a ipreparatoiy school m Ballance street, Gisborne deposed that the child was at the school! JJefendant had not at any time given her instructions to prevent 'the plaintiff seeing the child. Plaintiff's manner had been erratic m many ways. Some times she wouid go inside the gate, and then go away again without coming m. The child was happy and healthy. By Mr Mann : Witness on the "first occasion deemed it wise to telephone the father -before permitting plaintiff "to B ee the child, as she (witness) did not know quite who the visitor was. The child wa s away from Friday afternoon till Monday. Plaintiff had often asked to have .the child over the week-end. Marian Smith, sister of the defenduL said5 aid the chad always stayed w:th her over tho week-end. The -child was always happy at her home. In connection with tho incident referred to by plaintiff witness said she went; to look after her brother's house while plaintiff was away visiting her mother. While tner« plaintiff often lost her, temper and ordered witness out of the house. By Mr Mann: Witness did not like tno people , with whom plaintiff was staying. ■i?!? Williams said he examined the chjjld (tho subject of the action) on Friday last. The child was a normally healthy one. Witness could not find •anything wrong with the childfc heart. He was satisfied there was nothing wrong with the child's constitution. Dr. C. F. Scott deposed that the child was perfectly healthy. Plaintiff called m witness and wanted him to agree with her that the school was not a suitable place for the child. He had since made an examination of the child and was of the opinion that the child was perfectly healthy. Leon Hern Baigent, defendant, said I no went to camp m October, 1918, and returned about the end of November or early m December. When he returned he met his wife on the Hawera railway station. He was. somewhat surprised to see her there instead of at home. She said, "I have made up my mind, not to live with you as a wife again, !but will go home with you for a. day or two.," Witness hid his surprise, and went home. Plaintiff shut herself m her' room with the child. Next .morning plaintiff said, "I decline to live with you any longer." She added that -she was a lady and witness was only a working man. She had other spirits calling her and: intended to live a pure and simple' life. That was the explanation he received. As a result of what'fto heard h© asked her if it was true that a certain person had presented her with a, lot of jewellery which she was wearing, she having told people that he had presented it to her, as she had nursed him m the epidemic. Plaintiff laughed and replied, "It's no business of yours." Witness found out later that she had purchased it, and found a receipt for £89 for one month. Later, when this person was staying at the Mountain House, plaintiff motored to" the place. On her return witness asked her about it, and plaintiff replied aocain that it was no business of his. Witness then went on to narrate tho {rouble which- occurred over tho. child. . He determined that the child should fco to school, and fed him and clothed him. Witness then went to take the child to school, and plaintiff tried to prevent witness getting out of her bedroom with "tho child. Plaintiff started to hit witness over the head with something, and he then hit her like one would do to a child. The child was sent to Gisborne and attendedtho Te Hapara school, and later w

transferred to a private schol. Until the question of Sundays cropped up plaintiff seemed quite satisfied with the concession. When the matter of the child going to church came up plaintiff. j despite the fact that arrangements were made, did not carry them out. By Mr Mann: "Witness had no objeclhon to plaintiff staying m Gisborne, so long as she behaved herself. Respecting the appointment m town plaintiff wanted witness to go to the place where she was staying, but witness refused. In the conversation concerning the agreement witness threatened: police ■• protection, if plaintiff continued to molest Miss Aylmer.' Plaintiff had a motor car, which' she sold, bub witness also gave her r a good sum of money when he went to. camp", and at Christmas . time sho ha\d tnot enough money to pay the train farejfrom Kaponga to Hawera. „ After hearing submissions by counsel : fo\* both patties, his Honor reserved hisj decision. ■■ '

The Court sat m Chambers this afternoon to deal with various matters, including that of the lesfal discussion m connection- with the Repongaere Lake case, respecting tho title to the native lands. .. - » - " _^