DR. HUNTER AND HIS WIFE.

West Coast Times, Issue 200, 10 May 1866, Page 2

DR. HUNTER AND HIS WIFE.

fAWo extract tho following from the report of proceedings in the Rosident Magistrate's Court, Dunedin, from the ".Daily Times:"— Edward Lyons v. Alexander Hunter. Claim, L 5 10s., for board and lodging, and goods supplied to the defendant's wife. Mr Macassey appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Prendergast, instructed by Mr Harvey, for the defendant. The defendant pleaded "Never indebted."

Mr Macassoy said that this was a claim for an amount duo for board and lodging, and the price of a pair of boots — a debt incurred. Mrs Hunter had for a long period been living apart from her husband, living boon forced to do

8o by Ms feobdiibt towards Her.. Th^ jtaVtleS were married at Edinburgh, yiw. 1844, and lived happily together for. a, number of years. After a jnp3o ,of thn'9 tho defendant emigrated, With the full consent of his wife, to Australia. Mrs Hunter proceeded to join him in Melbourne, having received from him a remittance to cnablo hoi' to do so. On her arrival in the colony she found a Mrs Lockhart in control of her huß* buancl's house, and that she hod lost her placo in his esteem and affeCtiCtli. This caused a contention between them.; and the defendant having struck hei* aud otherwise ill-trea tedher, she was compelled to separate from him, doing so in September, 1853. At his request she again returned to his house, but eventually had to fly for fear of her life. Again and again sho returned to him, and the same treatment was repeated, till on one occasion she was strapped to a bed-post and horsewhipped, and it was given out that she was insane. She" then submitted to medical examination, and was declared to be of perfectly" sound mind. She continued to return to her husband, but on each occasion the ill-treatment was ronewed, and^ at last Jthero had bee"n a filial separation. Since that time frequent overtures had been made to her to return to his homo ; but as the defendant per&istcd in considering her insane, she refused: / The following evidoiice whs giych ir~ ■ Janet Rochet Hlir.toi v--\'i?ra tho wife of the defciuW',, Alexander Hunter. I lcnAw-tl'ie ]Aamtiff, and have been lodging at his place since my arrival in Dunedin. I went there on the 23rd of March. The money was to have been paid in advance. One item in tho claim is for a pair of boots supplied to mo at my request, I being in want of them. I left my husband in October, 185G, and have not received maintenance from him. We were married at Edinburgh in 1844, and my husband emigrated in. 1849. I followed him td Melbourne, and on meeting him found him a changed man, and that he had given his affections to a Mrs Loekhart, who was installed as mistress of his house. Ho instructed the servants to obey her and not mo, and they both ill used me. I left him, but he sent for me, and I returned, lie continued his ill treatment, and I left him, again. About a week after I went to him and asked him to givo me some money. He told mo to wait a bit, and assisted by Mrs Lockhavt, ho forced mo into a bedroom > and strapped me down to tho bed. They then horsewhipped me, saying that they would do so until I told them where my baby was. This was at his house at Brighton, and I was frequently soused. They gave out that I was insane, and I was closely watched. I made my escape in March, 1854.. I went again to him with Dv Singleton, who told him that I was not insane. The defendant asked mo to return, promising to treat me hotter, and saying that he. would dismiss Mrs Lockhart. I went to Brighton, but Mrs Lockhart , soon returned, and in his absence starved me. On complaining to him of her treatment, ho took hold of mo by the throat, saying that Mrs Lockhart would in futuro share his bed, and be his companion. This was tho third separation. I returned again, on his proraiso to bo kind to me, but his ill treatment continued. Ho told the servant that Mrs Loekhart was coming down again, and on various occasions he kicked and horsewhipped mo. Refusing to .maintain me, I took him to -the Police Court, and L 4 per week was decreed to me, which was subsequently reduced to L 2 10s. • To please the Magistrate, but strongly against my own will, I returned to his house again, and remained for about a month. Mrs Lockhart came then, and Mrs Estel, a relation of hor's, also. Starvation and cruelty was the cause of tho fifth, separation. He engaged a servant to watch mo, telling her that I was out of my mind. Ho used to kick and beat me, sometimes for merely reading a newspaper. If ho mot me, he would strike me, and force me into my room, saying that I was a disgrace to his house. He also kept mo without necessaries. On one occasion I ordered a pair of boots, and tho man camo for payment. He refused to pay him, saying I was insane; and, assisted by Mrs Lockhart, ho got mo down, and took tho boots from off my feet, I again left him, and have since refused every overture made by him to return. He framed an enquiry in lunacy against mo ; and Drs Reeves, Wilkic, Effler, Black, and Thomas cor.tified that I was perfectly sane. I commenced proceedings against him in the Divorce Court, and Judge Chapman decreed me L 8 per month alimony. Previous to this ho camo to my lodgings at ton o'clock at night, accompanied by two men, named Cox and King. He met mo as I Avas coming down the stairs, and calling out, " There she is," endeavored to put something over my head, and to seize me. My screams attracted attention, and I was rescued. I received a letter from him, offering mo il an asylum," but I did not attend to it. A Mr. Pearson obtained a judge ment against him in tho County Court, Melbourne, for a debt incurred by me. He paid mo tho money decreed to me in the Divorce Court, until tho 5h November, 1863, when ho loft Melbourne for New Zealand. Ho had not paid mo any since, and thero is now two years and a half duo. I did not know that he was going to Now Zealand until he was gone. I never will live with him again, as I should be in danger of my life I invitation of tho latter, and tho husband's liabilities for necessaries furnished to her cannot bo determined by a request on his part that she will again return to his protection. The defendant had set up that his wife was in-* sano. If sho was so, and ho declines to and liberty.— By My Prendorgast ; I

1 . . 1 - first, knew of my son's death by seeing ihe notice in tho " Otago Daily Times." Since my husband loft Melbourne have supported myself by needlework and dressmaking, and by keeping lodgings. I have received money from my relations in Scotland. In 1856 I received L 45 and L3O each year up to 1801, when I received LSO. AVhen my husband went to Scotland I took a situation as housekeeper. I commenced the proceedings in the Divorce Court in 1863. I have not gone on with- the case for want of means. I obtained some money from my friends for my law expenses, but spent it in furnishing my house. It was my brother Lord Handyside who sent me money. My family are wealthy. I have no property, nor have I interest in any, as I gave my patrimony to my husband on my marriage. Mr Prendergast said, that no doubi; this was a distressing case, but inattcrs had reached such a point, that its publicity Could not be avoided. The defence was, that Mrs Hunter had not been justified in leaving her home, and that therefore the defendant was not liable for her debts. Her husband believed her to be of unsouud mind, aud ho might have had her placed in restraint. A kindly feeling towards her, and a hope that she might recover, had caused him not to do so, and he was hot bound to incur expense, and suffer anxiety to prove that she was of unsound mind, He chose rather the usual course of throwing round her his protection and care, had offered her a home, and had always been ready v 0 receive her as his wife.

Alexander Hunter, examined : I am the defendant in this case. Tho statements mado by my wife in giving her evidence are for the most part utterly untrue. I know Mrs Lockhart. She was my housekeeper. There is no truth in Mrs Hunter's statement that I had improper intercourse with Mrs Lockhart. It is ono of the many imaginary crimes she has charged me with; cruelty, starvation, attempts to poison her, keeping concubines, and every imaginary wickedness. I distinctly deny the charge of adultery with Mrs Lockhart or with any other person. I have been a most virtuous and honorable man towards my wife. Her statement about tying her to the bed and horsewhipping her is Utterly untrue. I never, on any occasion, used the least violence towards her. I havo used gentle force, such as any man would use in removing her from one room to another, when shohas been behaving strangely. I havo no doubt that she is of unsound mind. It was well known in Edinburgh, where she was under the surveillance of medical men. I never kept her without meat. She has stated a thousand times that I did so, but it is a creation of her imagination. I did not, when she returned in 1854, take her by the throat and put her out, nor did I make use of the words she states I did. I never told the servants not to obey her, except when she would give some ridiculous orders. She would sometimes stop the dinner, or order the furniture to be moved out of the house. When she acjed in this irrational manner, I instructed the servants not to comply with her request ; but they were to treat her with all possible respect. She has taken numberless proceedings against me ; but has never produced a witness. Tho results of those proceedings, which were against me, were cancelled by an action which I brought against two Magistrates, Messrs Smith and Sturt for perversion of justice, and in which I recovered damages. I have never issued an enquiry in lunacy against her, or even thought of doing so. I never kicked her, never lifted my foot to any woman in my life. . I wrote her a number of letters, requesting her to return to her home. In the one in which tho word " as} T lum" occurs, the context will show that I did not mean a lunatic asylum. When I intended ■to go to Scotland I told her so. Mrs Hunter has always had from L 250 to L 260 a year, private income, which came from the family property, and she has also since her marriage received three legacies. All I received from her or her family, was under LSOO ; but it was all I asked for. I have never exerted my rights in regard to her property, and I know that her income has not ceased. I was arrested on board the Donald M'Kay, on a charge of desertion, I offered in Court to leave LI SO for her outfit and passage ; but she refused to accept it. I made it my first duty when I returned to Melbourne, to wait upon her. Her statement about my attempts to seize her is entirely imaginary ' ? on the occasion referred to I took two friends as witnesses with me, and asked her to come and live with me. She became very violent, and then made tho same statement as now. She was examined by five surgeons in Edinburgh, who certified to her insanity. I now reside in George-street. I have only one servant. Mrs Lockhart is not with me. Mrs Estell kept my chambers here. She is now married. She has stated that I came out to Sydney ; that is untrue. I never was there. By Mr Macasscy — I came out in tho ship Victory. I deny almost everything she has stated. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said — This has been a painful and protracted case. The law was laid down, that " whenever tho wife has once left her husband under justifiable circumstances, she is not bound to return upon the take steps to prove it, tho inference must be that she was not of unsound mind. It was for him (the Magistato) to decide whether Mrs Hunter was justified in leaving Jier husband. The Magistrate in Melbourne had bound the defendant to keep tho peace, and he would not have dono so without cause. Ho was sorry to havo to conio

to the conclusion, that the defendant had treated his wife somewhat improperly ; but from the evidence he was of opinion that such was the case, and that she ivns justified in leaving him. Ho would therefore give judgment for plaintiff, for amount claimed with costs. Mr. Harvey gave notice of tho intention to appeal.