Alleged Wife Desertion.

Southland Times, Issue 12022, 13 May 1892, Page 2

Alleged Wife Desertion.

AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE. A case of alleged wife desertion presenting some singular features came before C. E. Riwson, Esq., R.M., yesterday afternoon, when James Brown, of Wallacetown, horse | dealer, appeared in answer to an information charging him with having at "Wallacetown, I on the 19th of April, 1892, deserted Mary Brown, and left her without adequate means of suppoit. Mr R. McNab appeared for the complainant, and Mr Henderson for the defendant.—ln reply tc his Worship Mr Henderson said that his client denied the charge— he knew nothing whatever about the woman. •,*,.#. Mr McNab, in opening the case, said that the complainant's maiden name was Quealy, and she was a native of County Clare, Ireland In tbe same place there lived one James Brown, whom she had known from infancy. When they grew up they " kept company," and on the Bth of August, 1878, were married by the parish priest. Her husband had no means to support her, and she returned at once to her parents house, while be remained with his people. At that time she was barely sixteen, aud her husband was five or six years older. He was then on the eve of leaving for New Zealand under the nominated emigration system, aud did leave shortly after, promising to send for his wife as soon as he could. She subsequently, from information received, wrote a letter to him, addressing it to Invercargill, bat she never received a reply. She stayed with her mother in the hope that he would turn up, rumours of his whereabouts occasionally reaching her, but in April, 1889, she sailed for New Zealand. Before leaving she obtained a certificate from the parish priest in reference „to her marriage, her husband having retained their marriage lines. On reaching the colony *he proceeded to Hokitika, where she had a half-brother and sister. While there she worked for her living, filling various positions, and all the time making inquiries in reference to her husband. Eventually she learned f .hat he was living at Invercargill, and she gave her employers a month's notice, at the expiry of which she came to Invercargill, arriving on Saturday, April 16th. On the following Tuesday she went out to the Junction Hotel and identified the defendant, who was staying there, as the James Brown to whom she had been married in 1878. The complainant was then called, and gave evidence substantially to the same effect as her counsel's statement. In the course of her evidence she stated that while in Hokitika she saw an advertisement in reference to horses in an Invercargill pape-. It was signed James Brown, and from her knowledge „of the man she married she thought it" likely to be him, as he used to have a liking for horses. The witness also produced a certificate signed Daniel Hayes, certifying that James Brown was married to Mary Quealy on the Bth August, IS7B, and that the witnesses were Patrick Lillie and Johanna Quealy. In cross-examination the witness admitted that there were urgent "reasons for hastening the marriage between. herself and the defendant. As she was under age the priest declined to marry them without their parents' consent, which was obtained. Miss Kelly of Westport, and Martin Clohesy, of Reefton, knew both witness and defendant, and were aware of their marriage, although not witnesses to it. During part of the time she was in Hokitika she was engaged as an attendant in the Lunatic Asylum, receiving L 4 a month. She was on night duty, and her association with the patients did not affect her mind, nor was the notion that the defendant was her husband an imaginary one. She had never claimed any other man. She could earn her own living. She had no money in the bank, and none laid past She had a pound in her pocket, and when she came to Invercargill she gave Mrs Baggott LlO, of which she received L 2, the balance to be used for her board during her stay. She was not destitute—not yet. She had frequently sent money home to her mother after coming to the colony. She did not know what she (witness) was like 14 years ago, but she knew she was the same person. (Laughter.) She could swear that the defendant was the man she married. Counsel here got the defendant to stand alongside Constable Burrows, whom he resembles, and remarking that they were both good-looking fellows, asked the witness if she was still as certain ol the defendant's identity. .She replied that she could swear to him in spite of the time that had elapsed since their marriage. When she saw the defendant at Wallacetown he told her she was mistaken, and that he had never seen her. The people with whom she worked knew her as Mrs Brown— she always gave that name. The marriage took place at night, as the defendant was working all day, and there were over a dozen people present. Her husband's name was James Brown — he spelt it with an *'c." Re-examined : Her marriage was a matter of notoriety at the time. To his Worship : She had never been a patient in an asylum. Mr Henderson : This is the second woman in New Zealand who has claimed Brown. He is a most unfortunate man. His Worship said that the complainant, accompanied by the local priest, had waited on bim some days ago and told him all that she had stated in the witness-box. He then advised her to delay action till she had obtained further evidence in support of her case, and it would have been well if she had taken his advice. An order could not be made on the avidence given. If that were done no man would be safe — a woman might come from Britain and claim a man as her husband unless the fullest proof were required. It would be a most dangerous precedent. There was only the complainant's evidence, for the certificate put in did not corroborate the complainant as to the identity of the defendant, but only as to the marriage. Mr McNab explained that he was not aware of thenatureof theadvice given by his Worship to the complainant^ although he was aware an interview had taken place between them. Reasons were given to him why the case should be brought immediately. At the close of the complainaut's case Mr McNab suggested that the defendant should be put on his oath for examination, but Mr Henderson objected on the ground that there was no case to answer. The complainant's evidence was unsupported. The defendant had never lived with her. She ** was riot destitute, but if she claimed to be Brown's wife it was open to her to institute an action for the restitution of conjugal rights. His Worship thought the defendant could be compelled to give evidence, but Mr Henderson held that it was not competent for the Court to do so. His Worship said that if the defendant was not the woman's husband, what on earth was there to prevent him going into tho witness-box and saying so ? Mr Henderson said that the defendant had good reason not to go into the box, because it might lead to the disclosure of the points of his defence. A prima facie case had not been made out, and the defendant should not be put to the disadvantage, if it was one, of being called at that stage. The complainant had neither proved desertion nor destitution, and there was only her simple oath, and that was not sufficient in such a case. His Worship, after further consideration, said he was not iuclined to press the point as to the defendant being required to give evidence. As he had already stated, there was not sufficient evidence to warrant tbe granting of the order sought. Whether tho complainant would be iv a position to produce further evidence subsequently was t another matter. In that case fresh action could be taken, but at present there was not sufficient evidence. Information dismissed. Mr Henderson said that if the complaiaant could satisfy the defendant that she was his wife he would do his duty.