“WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN?”

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19047, 26 June 1924, Page 7

“WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN?”

ORDER FOB MAINTENANCE AND GUARDIANSHIP REFUSED. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr Watson, S.M., Kathleen Izabel Jennings (Mr Slipper), proceeded against Henry G. Jennings, motor engineer, of Wanganui (Mr Thorpe), for maintenance and guardianship. The complainant said she was married in 1914 at Christchurch, and there were three children of the union. Witness got on very well with her husband so long as his mother did not interfere. Four years ago they shifted to Wanganui, and she got on much better with her husband than she did at Christchurch. However, trouble arose later, and she went away and left her husband with the children so that he would know how much it took to keep them. Five weeks later she returned from Oamaru, at the request of her busband. A woman then came on the scene and caused trouble. Her husband declared that the woman, with whom he used to have morning tea, was a beautiful woman, and ho compared her with witness, and humiliated her. One day he returned homo, and she offered him cocoa. He said he wanted tea, and when she told, him he had not brought any home he raised his hands to strike her. As a result she broke some plates ehe had, in her hands. He said that he would leave her; and the woman in the case said that she would come between witness and her husband. In May she went to hospital, and left her children with a Mrs Smith, with the instructions that they were not to be handed over to her husband. When she came out of hospital they were gone. Witness, showing signs of emotion, said: “I have walked miles to see them. I don’t know where they are, and my husband won’t let me see them. The Rev. Jenkin and my husband know where they are, but they won’t tell me where they are.” When witness came out of hospital on May 24, her husband was boarding with the woman in the case. Since that date she had received nothing from her husband. She had received no maintenance, had lost her children, had not been told where they were, and was not able to see them. Her husband had said repeatedly that she was mad, and both he and her mother-in-law said they would have her put in an asylum. This happened quite frequently, and it had got on her nerves. She produce doctors’ certificates to show that she was not mentally unbalanced. I Mr Thorpe; What is your object in bringing this action?—l want my children. I love them dearly, and want them back! It is not vindictiveness that has caused you to come, to Court? —No! Proceeding under cross-examination, witness stated that in Christchurch her mother-in-law had tried to separate her from her husband, and had taken her infant child from her arms. She (fhe mother-in-law had suggested that he had been carrying on with the girls at the boarding-house.

Then there is no vindictiveness against your husband? —No! I am willing to work along with him af his dirty frade. I cannot, however, forgive my mother-in-law, or the woman, for trying to separate me frlm mV husband. It. is my passionate love for my children that has caused me to bring this action.

Don’t you get £3 10s?—Yes, but that is not enough; he should provide me and the Children with a homp, I consider it is every man’s duty to provide a home, otherwise he should not get married. You, vilified your husband in front of his customers?—l asked him to prochildren with a home, Do you remember going to his shop With a horsewhip, and striking him? — Yes. And he deserved it for not treating my children properly. What was the trouble over on that occasion?—He gave me a cheque, and I could not cash it. When I asked him to rectify a mistake on it, he told n e to go to h—, —! You admit that you went to his workshop, a n d struck him across the face with a whip?—Oh! Mr Thorpe! Don’t enlarge the facts. I did everything possible to get him to alter the cheque; ■ On another occasion you went to the shop, dumped one of your children down, and told your husband to look after his damn child?—No!

You left your child then although you say you love it? —No! Mr Jennings took the child forcibly from my arms.

In May, 1923, you went into hospital, and left your children alone in Moore Avenue?—l have never left my children alone. My friends had the eare of them!

Well, Mr Jennings was notified, and he went and looked after them.—Yes.

You seem to think this is a conspiracy against you?—Yes. And you, Mr are not treating me fairly, That’s straight to your face! When you went into hospital, what arrangements did you make for the care of your children?—l paid for them to be eared for. A lady came to the house, and I told her to tell my husband that if I did not come out of the operation, to look afer my children,

Witness proceeded to answer questions in an evasive manner, and His Worship advised her to answer them properly. He pointed out that the witness was working herself up unnecessarily. Mr Thorpe, to witness: Why did you break the plates?—l just broke them. Did you throw them at your husband?—No! I did not. You are not vindictive then?—No! But I want comfort, my children, and a home.

Did you go to a number of solicitors and the police for assistance?—Yes. Have you also been to a number of ministers of religion?—Yes! Three of them, and they asked me to withdraw the summons against my husband and be kind to him.

What is your religion?—l am a Protestant, but I am beginning to doubt religion after thq things that have been done to me!

Were you not out at Kai Iwi —Yes’ I took my three children and camped out there.

Did you look after them all the time? —Yes!

You never catpe into town? —Yes! I came in for money. Was there one night that you got back to your children at midnight?— Yes! I missed the ear.

Were the children safe?—Yes, they werq in the eare of spme friends. Have you ever threatened to murder the children?—No! Anyone who says that is telling lies. Of course you are very much upset about your children being missing?— Yes. I have been all over the town looking for them. You inquired from Rev. Jenkin about them?—Yes! He refused to tell me where they were.

You interrupted a religious meeting last Friday night, did’t you?—No. Didn’t you tell the rev. gentleman that he was inhumane?—Yes. He practises what he does not preach. The Magistrate asked if it was necessary for counsel to ask all these questions.

Mr Thorpe explained that he was endeavouring to get some evidence in regard to the complainant’s unfitness to be in charge of the children. Mr Slipper, in referring to his client’s suitability to have the custody of the children, said he could produce testimonials in regard to the way ahe kept her children. Mr Thorpe submitted that there had been no evidence in regard to the nonpayment of maintenance. The point contested was concerning the guardianshin of the children. He contended that' the complainant’s attitude when in the box showed that she was of of such an excitable, and eccentric nature that she was not a proper persons to have tho custody of the children.

The defendant deposed that several rows over bills being run up, and his wife repeatedly calling for the doctors to give her attention, led up to the first separation in December, .1919. His wife went to Christchurch, but he did not request her to return to him. His wife’s mother wrote to him asking that he take her back. In 1921 there was a further row, and she ordered him out of the house, and threw his clothing out of the window. During the time he had been separated he had paid £3 10s per week. Witness, in outlining the facts of the horsewhipping incident, said that his wife hit him over tho eye with the butt end of the whip. She also threatened to riddle him with bullets, and said she would commit suicide and kill tho children. In August, 1922, his wife went to hospital, and although he did not have the custody of the children he cared for them. In May, 1923, he put two of the children in the Orphanage, and took one himself. When he got them they had insufficient clothes. He had been willing to pay maintenance all along, but had not been given an opportunity of paying it. To Mr Slipper: His wife was highly strung, and she had been so since three months after they were married. It was impossible for him to live with his wife, and she had killed all the love he had had for her. He did not know that she loved her children. Sometimes she seemed as though she did, while at others she did not care a rap for them. He had never raised hia hand to his wife in his life, and she had thrown dishes at him. He told her if she did it again he would leave her. Ho had never told his wife that a certain doctor said she was a fit subject for a mental hospital. When his wife was in the hospital, he took the children away. He had been told by people he knew that the children had not been properly looked after. He had come to Court to protect; the children, who were at Westmere. He would not tell his wife where they were, because she would have gone and snapped them up; and he would have had the whole trouble over again. He did not know anything about an anonymous letter telling his wife to look for her children near Fordell, in (he opposite direction to where they wore. Mr Slipper produced testimonials from reputable citizens, in which it was declared that the complainant’s children wore always well cared for. Several witnesses were called for the defence, and they declared that the complainant was of a highly strung nature, and should not have the custody of the children. They instanced certain incidents of violence on her part.

Sergeant Reid said that the complainant was of a very eccentric nature, and he considered that she was not a proper person to have the custody of the children. She seemed to have the delusion that her husband was going with other women.

After listening to lengthy evidence, His Worship declared that he was of the opinion that there were no grounds for the orders. There had been no wilful failure to maintain on the part of the defendant. He made a suggestion to the defendant that the maintenance be increased from 25s for the wife, at present, to 30s, and refused to orders. He had no doubt but that the complainant would be given access to the children.