RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1811, 22 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before E. W. Puckey and J, Kilgour, Esqs., J's.P.) CONJUOAL DIFFICULTIES.

John Muir was charged with having deserted his wife and leaving her without the means of support. Defendant pleaded not guilty through Mr. Tyler ; Mr. Macdonald for plaintiff. Mr. Macdonald briefly stated the circumstances.

Mary Ann Muir, complainant, deposed —That she was the wife of defendant, John Muir, having been married on the 15th November, 1870. She was living at Papatoitoi at the time.. Witness was married at the Surrey [Redoubt —a few miles from the Queen's Redoubt. Defendant was on a farm. Ho told witness he was a farmer, and that she would bo a farmer's wife. Witness lived with him on the farm about, 11 months. Defendant had been occupied during the time on tho farm. Always understood that defendant wa3 a farmer—not a farm laborer. Witness became sick during that time. , A child was born. After the child was born witness suffered from a sickness which necessitated her going to her father's house. There had been no quarrel, and witness went with her husband's concurrence. The sickness was mental, witness not being' in her senses at the time. Remained with her father a few months. It was at a friend of her father's, her father's being there. As soon as witness was well enough she went to her husband's relatives, who told her to return to her father, and her husband would fetch her. She went, and in three or four days her husband came to the house. He said he would not hare her home for twelve months. His reason was in case she should have an increase in family. , Witness then came to the Thames. That was about three years since. Came to. act as housekeeper to her brother and a man living 'with. him. After she had been on the Thames five months she wrote to her husband, and received an answer. The reply was lost, witness believed. In consequence of the letter which she received from her husband witness went home (to her husband's house). Witness subsequently discovered that her husband had not received a letter from her to say she was coming. When witness arrived her husband was gone, and his own brother told her that he (defendant).had gone to California, and might never be back. Witness returned to the Thames, under the belief that her husband was away. Witness had no further information until she heard her husband was back, when she went home again. This was about 7 or 8 months ago. Her husband said " you might just as well be back at the Thames, as I do not mean to live with you." Witness came back to the Thames. Had no means of support. Witness wrote to her husband saying he Imust support her, if he would not take her home, when he offered to give her 5s per week. She had not been home since. The only support witness had received was £5 when she went home the last time —that wag before he offered the 5s per week. He had paid nothing on account of the 5s per week. Apart from the offer the 5s had never been tendered. Could live on 15s a week. The child was supported by defendant's friends. Cross-examined by Mr. Tyler—'The commencement of the misunderstanding was at the time of the. birth of the child. My husband offered to pay for my keep at my father's house for 12 months.. My father left the decision to me, and I.did not wish it. I went to the Thames of my own free will. The consequence of the child's birth was derangement of my ihtpllfect, and the reason my husband gave for hot wishing to live with me was, that a recurrence of that mij,ht take place. lam now staying at Mr. Bead's, in Shortland. I was receiving 10s per week when I first went, and am getting 7s. now. I did not leave my situation rwhen I went away. I left with the understanding of coming back. I received £5 and a promise of££Ss per [week, which I refused, I have heard something about Mr. Wells—the person with whom I stayed with my brother—claiming.£46 on my account from my husband. But I should have beep, informed, as I was not

awaro he was going to charge for my keep. T did n-.L, think it well that the separation chonld take place. I should have been satisfied with 15s per week, that is, if he would.not take me home. I consider the desertion dates from the last time I went home.

Kc-examiued by Mr. Macdonal«l—Her husband never made any objection to supporting her if she went to her brother's as opposed to her staying with anyone else.

"_■ Mr. 'J'ylcf cohToha'ecl'tliSrtlie prosecution nmsfc: falLfo fbCjgroupd foe various reasons, whiohiie prdoeerled to point-out. Assuming that, there had been desertion— ,which ho should be able toiprove wag not the case—the ac'ion was brought too late. The desertion «was aliened, to having taken place in the month of February last, and the information was dated the 25th Septemberf; whereas the "Act expressly Stated that the information must be laid within six months of the time of the matter 5 arising which formed the ground of complaint. He quoted a case in English law in suppOrbof this argiimoht' > If tlioplaintifF had nob chosen to comply with the law in laying the inforniatiou,; it was her own fault, and the case could not stand. As it was, the plamtiff was not left without an alternative: she could%>ply to the Supreme Court for restitution of conjugal rights. Another point was as to. whether defendant was destitute and, withxmt means of support., This, he submitted, was not the case, a3 the defendant had at no time . been destitute, .according to her own evidence.' Mi\ Tyler then proceeded to shew that plaintiff had been dealt with, reasonably. That defendant' had been compelled -to take the protection of th« Insolvency Court through a debt of £46 contracted ..by ; his wife ;,, that he had since given' her th© sum of £5, accompanied by an offer of 5i pcr 1 week for her maintenance ;'that fie washimself in receipt only of £1 per week; that he contributed 8s of that towards the support of his child in : the hands of his relatives ; and- that, taking these circumstances into, consideration^ and the financial position of defendant in particular, the demand for 15a per week was totally out of the question. Xyler further stated that defendant was now willing to contribute 5s towards tho support of his wife, with, which sum and that she, was at present earning, namely, 7s,,she would be in receipt of 12s weekly over and above board and lodging* He contended that no evidence had been shown to prove that defendant had deserted his wife. He had good and sufficient reasons for wishing to live separately; and he (Mr. Tyler), as the mouthpiece of the defendant, couldV say that the reason of defendant's wishing to live away from his wife was that the birth of her first child had resulted^ inthe derangement of her intellect, and he feared a recurrence ofisucha circumstance; which —according to medical advice given to defendant—*he had learned would-be the inevitable consequence. <> The Cbttrt made an order for defendant to pay 5s a week towards the support of his wife, to be paid to • 'the Clerk of the Court at Russell. The judgment carried with it the costs of the, action, which amounted to £2 6^ 6d.'; !: ''■ •■ v; ; AN UNBEaiSTJEEED,pqa. .; ; ri' George Bull was.iiharged with having unlawfully allowed one dog to be at large' without a collar for the current the year affixed thereto. ■ - <• ■& Mr. Tyler, for defendant, took exception to the information as not disclosing the offence; the fact of its being at lar^e without a collar^ was not an .offence>..: it, must be on a '♦ highway " or " unenclosed land.". . ... ... , -v, Mr. Macdonald said it did not appejiir that the charge. should be brought up In the form of an indictment. The question was : whpther the infqrniation. .■gave.-the defendant sufficient information -of the charge against him ;■ ;if not the Bench could amend the information. .

Mr. Tyler said an information could be amended when some offence- was. shown, but as in this case no offence had been shown, the case must be struck out.. ..'.■ The case was struck out. \; va^' AQNIHER CHARGE. The same defendant was charged that he, being the owner of a dog, did unlawfully allow the same to attack and bite one Joseph Wheelan on a highway, to wit, Karaka Road, on the 18th inst.

, Mr. Tyler for defendant, took the same objection in this case as the last. The information diUcJosed^ no cjffence, ■'" Allowing '•" a dbg H& hit& ■'•*was rid offence. The act also provided that the life or limb of the person attacked must be endangered,, on a highway o|» uninclosed ■j)lace. '• '■ ■ -■■• ' ''- ' • ' !!,,._/ X' Mr. Macdonald^sajd, whether tho sumi mons had been sb clumsily made as not tOjbe equivalent to an indictment.was,not the question. The eTidenic© should' be heard, as the evidence disclosed an offence. Mr. Tyler said there could be no conviction on the information, as the charge brought was a criminal 'charge, and there was no law which constituted tho" allow- ' ing " a dog to attack and bite a criminal ■'■'■ offence. •..: i!:' ":: ■ • -;'• ' •■•''"■:''.'■'•'■' '■ ' /'':' ■ ' The case was struck out.