ABDUCTION CHARGE FAILS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19864, 5 February 1920, Page 5

ABDUCTION CHARGE FAILS.

AN ARREST IN SYDNEY.

THE CUSTODY OF A CHILD.

In the Magistrate’s Court to-day. before Mr V. G. Day, S.M., Annie Jane Bean was charged under Section 230 of the Crimes Act with the abduction of her daughter, Kona Bean, a child under the age of fourteen years. Thu complainant wa-s George Vincent Bean, defendant’s former husband, who had obtained a divorce.

Mr P. J. Amodco, for the complainant, said that the parties had boon divorced in March, 191(5. Arrangements were made between the solicitors, and the child was put into a oou-l vent. The defendant withdrew a petition for custody, reserving the right to apply to the Court at any time in the future. The child had been kept in a convent since then, and m> authority had been given by the-father fdr the mother to toko the child away. On the day when the Convent broke up, the mother took the child away, first stopping at her sister’s place, and then going to Sydney, where she was arrested.

The informant, ginng evidence, sail that in March, lf)J.6. he had secured divorce against his wile. Following arrangements made as to custody, thy child had been in a. convent school. When lie found that the child had been, taken away, he called on defendant, who admitted that she had the child., but refused to give it up. To Mr (Wesson: When the child had been pul into a convent, arrangements had been made that his wife and him.self should take the child out ou alternate Sauirdayn. Since 191(5 his wife had not been, allowed by the convent authorities to take the child out. He had refused on ono occasion to allow hi t wife to take the child out ou a holiday. It was the practice at the convent for the children to leave at holiday'time. He did .not recollect that the child had spout any holidays in the Lceston Convent. The Reverend Mother Superior had not referred to him requests by his wife for permission to take the child out on -Saturday afternoons. Tho rules of. the institution did not allow tho child to bo taken out on a Saturday afternoon or any afternoon. He had taken the child out come afternoons, after giving as a reason that the child might require clothes. The convent authorities had not informed him that the child had been taken 1 «way by the defendant.

Mr Gresson: Did you realise that the effect, of these proceedings would be the arrest of your wife in Sydney?— All ,( considered was the child. Did yon realise that the child would be put into an orphanage in Svdnev for eight clays?—l could not 'think of everything. Iho Magistrate; Wo have to consider what other way the father had of obtaining his child. Mr Gresson: There is a writ of habeas corpus.

The Magistrate: That only acts in tho place where it is issued. After bearing further evidence. Mr Day-said that it was admitted that the mother had taken the child awav. but lie jlhl not think that anv jury would coimct.

■” r ,re?son ' said that the defence was f.iat the in-other had telephoned the convent authorities and told them that she was taking the child away. She had not informed them that she was taking it to Kydnov.

3lr Day said Hint tho mother had been ill-advised to take Hie child out of Aew Zealand. However, on the evidence it was improbable that any jnvv would convict, and he would dismiss the uUonnauoii.