“SIDE LINES"

Southland Times, Issue 18965, 13 June 1923, Page 10

“SIDE LINES"

BLACKSMITH AND SPIRITUALISM. Spiritualism and fortunc-te’ •—o stated to have been money-making “sidelines’ followed by an Auckland blacksmith, against whom his wife, having obtameu a divorce, sought permanent maintenance, before Mr Justice Herdman, in the Auckland Supreme Court last week. The petitioner was Sarah Ellen Burgess (Mr Singer), respondent being Arthur Burgess (Mr West). Mr Singer said that respondent, under an order made in the Magistrate's Court, had paid £2 a week to petitioner, but had ceased payment some few months ago. A decree nisi was granted in May, 1922. Primarily, respondent was a blacksmith, and thereby derived a good income. In addition, he was a spiritualist preacher, with a church of his own, and also had a fortunetelling business. Mr West objected to this description of his client. Petitioner, a little woman, but not lacking in garrulity, said she had had seventeen children, of whom nine were now living. Two of these were not supporting themselves. Respondent was still a blacksmith, and still a spiritualist. Prior to their separation he was running a spiritualist church in Symonds street, which was attended mostly by women. He a'so had spiritualist meetings in his house twice a week. One woman gave him £54, and sometimes the collections came to 27/- or 30/-, according to the number present. He told fortunes by flowers. He did not charge for that on Sundays, but had a silver collection; but his charge was 2/- on weekdays, and 2/6 and 5/- if by appointment. His Honour: What income did he derive ? Petitioner: I have known him to make £5 to £6 a week by fortune telling. Mr West said respondent was prepared to pay maintenance for the children within his means., His Honour: What about the wife? Mr West said respondent’s blacksmith business had not produced £2 a week. Not one penny had been added to his income from the spiritualist business since he was divorced. Respondent, a stoutly-built man, said he wa? in partnership with his son in the | blacksmith business. His bookj which was I produced, showed the taking for ten weeks prior to March 9 last to have been £34 4/-, out of which he had to make certain payments. He had married the women mentioned in the divorce proceedings immediately after the decree absolute, and now w 7 as living with her. His spiritualist work did not benefit him one penny. He did not handle the money, and he did nothing at all in fortune telling. He was I carrying on a spiritualist church in the Orange Hall, and sometimes they had an attendance of between thirty and forty on a Sunday. He still had one or two meetings a week at home. His Honour: Who takes the collection? Respondent: I don’t take the plate round. The collection is taken by the committee. Mr Singer: What do the poor foolish people do who come to your meetings? Respondent: They are not so foolish as you think. They simply belong to the church, and they give what they desire. Mr Singer very closely cross-examined repsondent as to his dealings with a certain woman during the time that her husband was away. Upon pressure respondent finally admitted that in 1919 he obtained from the woman in question a quantity of furniture, and got her to sign an acknowledgment that she had received £2OO for the furniture. He did not give her the £2OO, but he paid her debts, which amounted to over £2OO. The furniture was / sold for £3OO. Replying to Mr West, respondent said the affair of the furniture was novbenefit to him. His Honour said he was not. satisfied that respondent carried on the spiritualist business as a side-line, and did not do it for profit. He seemed to be deus ex machina, the .leading spirit. If respondent married a second time, his first duty was to his first wife and children, and if he had any sense of decency and manliness, he should pay. His Honour ordered respondent to pay £2 a week, with leave to apply for reduction as the children attained the age of sixteen. He was also ordered to pay £5 5/- costs |r petitioner.