FAMILY STRIFE

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12569, 5 March 1919, Page 5

FAMILY STRIFE

* LIVELY INTERLUDES IN COURT. TROUBLE WITH A SON-IN-LAW. A series of eases in which a complication ot family squabbling was ventilated wore heard at the Magistrate’s Lourt this morning, beforo Messrs H. 3. Crowthor and C. D. Morris, .T.P.’r. 3u)ia Gates applied for a prohibition order against Gordon Steven Mills, on tlu> grounds of excessive drinking; AVilham Berlin Gates applied for sureties ol the pence against Frederick Jackson, and Julia Gates risked for similar sureties against Gordon Steven Mills. Mr Twynehnm appeared for the complainants, who, ho said, feared that they were in danger from Jackson and Mills. Mr Cassidy was counsel for the defendants. A\ illinm Bertie Gales gave evidence as to the use of had language by Mills to his mother. Mills was his brother-in-law. and his mother threatened to take a. prohibition order against him. Jackson had accused witness of saying ho was “an undesirable from the front;,’’ which witness denied saying. A photograph of a wedding group containing witness’s likeness had been thrown into his yard with the faces disfigured. Mr Twyneham : And you're under tlm impression ho might do tho same to the original? Witness: Yes. Mr Twyneham: What was the condition of Afills when he called on you? AAitness: Ho was drunk, vour Worship. Mr Cassidy: Rather premature. A\ itness said he had seen Alills drunk several times. To Afr Cassidy: He never said Jack-* son had been kicked out of tho Army for a certain offence. He never said j that only two classes of persons rode on Jac! vson’s motor-cvcle. Julia Gates said that Afills enrne to elf’ knuso “foaming at the month.” [ She detailed all the happenings of the 1 squabble. Air Cassidy: Your Worships don’t nn ’'f f° hoar all the family history. The Chairman: Oh, wc’ro giving a good dead of latitude. M it-ness continued that she thought Taekson really dangerous. He had shot two shots” at his poor old mother only :i. litilo time o^o. Afr Cassidy: There’s been a good deal of squabbling, hasn’t there? A\ iln ess: If people wore just there would, be no squabbling. AVilliain George Gates, the father, outlined the happenings on the evening of February 8, the date of the climax of tho squabbles. AJills was “foaming at each side of the month,” and “commenced bouncing, ’’ which was only natural, as ho was in drink. Witness detailed aspersions which were alleged to have been made as to his married daughter “ taking chemicals,” and reorii|iinations as to supposed thefts of various articles. AYitness staled that “Gordon had said to his mother-in-law that she was ‘ a liar,’ it I am allowed to nso that language, your AVorships.” The defendants wanted to have a fight. “If tho light hadn’t been so bad 1 would have gone out and given them both a.thrashing, which they thoroughly deserved.” They also told his son that ho had been brought up on “broad and dripping,” and that his daughter had been better fed since shehad got married. H. A. De Courcy Brown, traffic manager of tho Tramway Board, said that Mills had been a..conductor for some, time, and he left without notice- During Ids employment ho had no evidence that- Alills was drinking. Air Cassidy: A witness for us. Thank you, Air Brown. Constable Pearce said t-lint- hp. had. seen Alills on two occasions “ during-the snow.” He had been drinking, hut witness could not say lie was drunk. Mr Cassidy said it was a perfectly absurd case, 'which had been hanging about the Court for week's and weeks. Ho. would ask for a dismissal. At Woodward, a- builder, said A hits was working for him, and was a. good worker. He had been working for him six mouths and turned up regularly every morning. The secretary otthe nnion said he had never hoard Alills classed as a “ drunkard and a vastei, and employers always asked for him. Airs Alills said there was no necessity for tho prohibition order. Mills was a food husband and fond of bis children. She had never had to go hungry. He had left tho power-house of his own free will. The mother: Remember, you are on vour oath. ... ; ‘ Witness (to Air nvyncha-m): Her ! husband got drunk precious little. He j had not- got properly drunk lor two j years. i ’ Mr Twyneham; AVhat ps properly drunk? . AYitness; AVcll, drunk is drunk—that is. when a man goes home and abuses bis wife- AVhon ho wanted a shilling ho came to her for it. j Air Twyneham; Does he smoke? j Air Cassidy: If my friend is to bo- i prompted to ask such questions we’ll he here, till to-morrow night. I To Atv Cassidy: There was no neccs- j sity to teke a. prohibition order out- J against her husband. Tho trouble | arose through a statement made that her child was “ a horn idiot,” and that was perhaps why her husband foolishly went round to the parents’ placeThe application for the prohibition order was dismissed. The chairman of the Bench said they were satisfied there, had hd?n a family disturbance, and tho best- tiling was to hind the two defendants over. Each defendant- was ordered to enter into a surety of the pence for six mouths in his own bond for £lO, each party to pay its own costs. “Surely,” said Airs Alills. as judgment was entered, “every man has a right- to stick up for his wife and child.”