ROMANCE IN REAL LIFE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 458, 3 November 1869, Page 3

ROMANCE IN REAL LIFE.

♦ (From the Melbourne Leader, Oct. 9.) A most extraordinary case was investigated by the city magistrates on the Ist instant, when John Dent was charged on remand with deserting his child. Ihe complainant, Ann Dent, stated that in 1860 she was the landlady of the British and American Hotel, Bourke street, and the prisoner was in her employ as barman. Iv January of that year he introduced a person to her as Parson Morrison, and by him they were married at the hotel, in presence of two witnesses, one of whom was since dead, and the other was in New Zealand, but she never received a certificate of her marriage. They lived together for some months, but shortly previous to the birth of her tirst child in September of the same year, he went to New Zealand, leaving her to follow. In October she went to New Zealand after him and they lived there as man and wife for a considerable time, during which the child died, but on the 12th of November, 1868, a second child was born. Before she was confined with this child, the defendant eloped from Auckland with Mrs Cramer, a married woman, and nine days after complainant's confinement she followed him to Sydney, whither she learnt he had proceeded, leaving her infant with a Mrs Jamieson, who was to bring the child to Sydney on her way to Newcastle to see some friends. Complainant found her husband in Sydney, and they lived together as man and wife. When he asked her what had become of the child, she said it was dead. She said this because he always said he was anxious for its death, but when he expressed his satisfaction at this, she told him not to make too sure of its death, as there were some marks on it, and it might yet appear. About three weeks or a month elapsed, and as Mrs Jauiieson did not appear with the child from Auckland, complainant began to be alarmed, and then acquainted a Dr Martin, of Sydney, with the whole occurrence, explaining to him various marks on the child by which she could identify it. A day or two after this she saw an advertisement from the police that a child had been found under a tree in the Domain. She went to the police and explained the marks on her child, which, when shown to her, she at once identified, both by the marks on it and also by a shawl in which it was wrapped. She was arrested by the police and locked up, but next morning was acquitted, and although every exertion was made by the police to discover Mrs Jamieson, she was never found. At this time complainant intercepted some letters passing between her husband and Mrs Cramer, from which she learnt that he was about to leave her and go and live with Mrs Cramer. She then sued him for the maintenance of her child, and he was ordered to pay the sum of 10s per week for twelve months, and as she was destitute, Captain Scott, the police magistrate, sent her to the Refuge. The prisoner could not find sureties, and was sent to gaol, where she visited him several times, and he pleaded so hard to be released, that at last she petitioned the Governor for his pardon, and he was liberated; but instead of returning to live with her, he bolted off to Victoria. The police magistrate paid her passage round to Melbourne, where she obtained a warrant for his arrest, which was executed at Alexandra, and he was brought to Melbourne. This was the complainant's story, and as it was denied that any marriage had ever taken place between the parties, and the complainant could produce no certificate of her marriage, Mr Creswell, who appeared for her, called Mr Pascoe and Dr Cutts to prove that they had lived together as man and wife. Pascoe, a draper, said that in January, 1866, Mrs Duncan, landlady of the British and American Hotel, Bourke street, owed him an account, and at the latter end of that month he went to the hotel for it, when she told him that she was married again, and pointed out the man Dent, who was behind the bar, as her husband, and he acknowledged the fact by saying " Oh, yes, lam the happy man." He, however, did not get the account, which was still due. Dr Cutts said that, about four years ago, he attended the wife of the prisoner when he was at Wood's Point, or if she was not his wife she was living as such. She died, and upon Dent's return from Wood's Point, he asked witness for bis account, and also some questions about his wife. The account was not paid, and witness lost sight of him for some time, until one day his collector told him he had seen Dent in an hotel in Bourke street. Dr Cutts proceeded there, and saw Dent, asking him why the account was not paid. He replied that business was very bad, but he would pay it in a short time, and at the same time requested him not to send his collector any more, as he was married again, and he would not like his wife to know of bis

former connexion. The hotel he went to was in Bourke street, and had the name of Duncan over the door. For the defence Dent was placed in the box, and said that, four years ago, he lived with the complainant at the British and American Hotel, but no marriage had ever taken place, although to preserve his own character he had to a certain extent acknowledged her as his wife. He left her before she transferred the hotel, and went to New Zealand. She subsequently sold the business and followed him to Hokitika. He then took pity on her and fouud her lodgings, but she became of such a violent temper, and he did not care about continuing the life he was leading, that he told her he would pay her passage to any part she would like to go, and he himself went to Auckland, where she again followed him. He then left for Sydney, and she also went there and had him aiTested, and the bench made an order for him to pay 10s per week for twelve months. He appealed against this order, but it was confirmed, and he remained in gaol for two months until he found sureties. He denied ; the paternity of the chUd, as the woman said when she came to Sydney that it was dead. When the case was heard in Sydney, nothing could be found of Mrs Jamieson, although a warrant was issued for her. The bench considered that no evidence had been brought before them witli reference to the child's paternity, but they were sorry that the same evidence had not been adduced as was done in Sydney, which was apparently enough for the magistrates to make an order, and for a higher court to sustain the order. They must, however, dismiss the case, but if the complainant could produce any evidence to strengthen her case she might again appear before them. The prisoner was accordingly discharged.