FIGHT OVER CHILD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17169, 12 October 1923, Page 10

FIGHT OVER CHILD.

CASE FOR DEFENCE, Allegations of kidnapping and assault. a short, unhappy married life, the custody of a three-year-old child and the alleged schemings of the Ricnmond Aiission were th© basis of a remarkable and complicated story in. th© Alagistrate's Court yesterday. The claim for £IOO for alleged assault made by By am Peters (Air Cracroft AYilson) against George Church and Leslie Church (Air AT. J. Gresson) was concluded yesterday when a ver- . diet was given for the defendants. George Church, a farmer, of Marshland. said that Airs Peters had requested him to protect her as she was going to get the child from her husband. Witness was a member of the Mission, and was interested in. Mrs Peters, who was a member. His brother and he rode alongside Peters. They had no settled plans. He was not aware that Peters was out on. the road. When he told Peters that he had tome along to assist Airs Peters to take the child, Peters struck out with his left hand. His brother then came along and .Peters fell over towards the brother. Th© child, which had fallen off. was picked up by Peters, who went across to the section. It was untrue that Peters had been assaulted on the road. He and his brother followed Peters into the sec tion. !As Peters was going as fast as he ' could with him following, he fell and he j dropped the child. Mrs Peters and Miss I Church, his sister, were also there, i Airs Peters picked up the child. | Peters began to kick and scratch j and he came at him. Peters was told I that he would be held if he persisted ;in .fighting. Peters bhon became I worse. Witness's brother put Peters on his back when Peters charged witj ness. Peters was asked to give in S and go away quietly, and he replied | that he would. The sexton then canto ; up and ordered them out. When wit- ! ness was taking his bicycle away, i Peters kicked at him and continued ! doing so till his brother put him mi 1 his back. During the whole of the ! time Peters acted a« a madman. No i more force than was required to keep | Peters quiet had been used. The abraI sion to Peters’s face might have been J caused by his running against a hawi thorn fence, and the bruises whetl ; Peters fell off his bicycle. li was nob j true that Miss Church took the child, j To At.j- Wilson :He had been a. memi ber of the mission for three years, i Are you a. conscientious objector r*— i The witness did not answer. ! Did you have any arrangements set out for this campaign?- No. j Did you stand in the gateway so as to prevent his making an exit?- -Yes. Leslie Church corroborated the firstdefendant’s evidence. Thelma Wallis Newman Peters, the wife of the plaintiff, said that she i left her husband in April. She was | then unacquainted with either the Richmond -Mission or the Church brothers. Her husband bad been unkind towards the child. It was arranged that AJiss Church should take the child. Why did you take those proceedings to recover the child instead of applying to the Court? —I. was afraid that he would do for the child. Ho threatened twice before. J was afraid he would hang us both. What arrangements did you make with the Churches to get the chib! back ? - T asked them to come and protect (,ont inning, witness said she was about a chain from Peters and the Church brothers when they rod© up to him. Why didn’t your husband recognise you?- I was dressed in another girl’s clothes. Air Wilson : Are you fond of the child?—Yes, very. She said she did not know anything about the order given by her father to Peters. You were dressed in another girl's clothes?-- -Yes. And you wore glasses?—Yes. Smoked? N\i. Charles Hitching.?, a- cleaner, gave evidence that he had seen two “rough and tumbles.” When Peters had run into the cemetery he. put the child on the ground and stood between it and the two pursuers. Florence Caroline Smith said that her husband and herself founded and had run the mission for eighteen years. It was run on voluntary subscriptions. She herself worked under the Justice Department as AYomcn’s Official Visitor to Gaols. Mr Gresson : Has Peters, at any

time, made threats against this child? - -Yes, and against his wife, too. His wife came to m© in great terror. Her wrist was twisted. Her husband followed her, but 1 refused to listen to him without my husband being a witness. Peters said, “ Unless you allow my wife to come back to me T will hang myself, and in case 1 do that [ will settle with them first.” I had hold of her hand and she shivered. From that time .1 have never tried to bring them together. ATr AYilson : You don’t actually approve of matrimony, your people prefer single blessedness?-- You mean the creed. No. You have single- missionors. You prefer that they should keep single?— Exactly the opposite. “In regard to the rights of the guardianship of this child,” said Mr Widdowson in giving his decision, “it is unnecessary for me* to point out that the only person who is the lega guarcl- ! lan oi the child is the mother.” Peters took upon himself the obligation to j maintain the child, and that -did not j interfere with the guardianship. The question was whether the Church ! brothers had committed the assault Assuming that they were the agents of the mother, the question would bo whether they had been resisted in the execution of rescuing the child. Under the Act the mother had the right to rescue the child. Me found that, in the first instance, there was no violence hr the defendants. The claim would he dismissed with costs to the defendants.