Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


At the Supreme Court at Picton, a case was heard last week, which lasted three day?, on which Eleanor Eyes was petitioner, and W. H. Eyer, respondent. Th^ following is a condense report of the case fromtheMarlborough Presss : — The petitioner sued for judicial separation and. maintenance on the ground of adultery by the respondent. Mr Connelly, with him Mr Rogers, for petitioner ; Mr Travers for respondent. The following were the three material allegations contained in the petition: — "3. That in and during the months of of August, September, October, and November, in the year 1871, at the City of Wellington, in the Province of Wellington, the said William Henry Eyes co-habited with one Charlotte Johnson, now of Blenheim aforesaid, and committed adultery with the said Charlotte Johnson. " 4. That between the 6th and 13th days of March, 1872, the said William Henry Eyes frequently visited the said Charlotte Johnson at Picton, in the Province of Marlborough, and on divers of such occasions committed adultery with the said Charlotte Johnson. " 5. That between the 20th day of October, 1872, and the 6th day of December, 1872, the said William Henry Eyes frequently visited the said Charlotte Johnson, at Blenheim aforesaid, and on divers of such occasions committed adultery with the said Charlotte Johnson. " To which the following answer was made by the respondent : — "1. That he denies that he committed adultery with Charlotte Johnson as set forth in the said petition. j " 2 Respondent further says that the j petitioner condoned the acts of adultery (if any) alleged in the caid petition." To this the petitioner replied :— "1. That she denies that she condoned the acts of adultery alleged in her petition i filed herein." Mr Travers said, before Mr Conolly opened his case, he would admit the third and fourth paragraphs in the petition, and acknowledge that adultery had been committed in Wellington and Picton, but denied the truth of the other paragraphs alleging adultery in Blenheim. Margaret Edmonds, aged 14 years, and Julia Chance aged 16 years, both of whom had being living, at different times, as servants to Miss Charlotte Johnson, a halfcaste, residing at Wellington, swore to Mr Eyes visiting that female, and sleeping in the same bed-room with her. Thomas Mostyn Humfrey, of Blenheim, used frequently to visit Mr Eyes' family. He stated : — " I knew Mrs Eyes well and saw the terms on which she and her hus-

band lived. I have frequently had conversations about this affair iv'th Mrs Eyes lately. The conversations commenced to take place shortly after the Picton affair. Tney were commenced by her. I never told her what I had come to Picton for. I had many conversations about it. She expressed much indignation, but sometimes fancied the intercourse had been done' with and she had overlooked the affair. I am certain of that opinion. I was ai'terwards.'at partiesatthe houss when both were present. At times she spoke about it, and I askedjher whatjwas the use of recarring to the affair, as it was done with. I believe that Mrs Eyes had overlooked the offence between the Picton affair and that in Blenheim irom the conversations I had with her. * * * * I was frequently present when Miss Johnson's name was brought up, sometimes by Mrs and sometimes by Mr Eyes. When the name was mentioned, he used sometimes iv anger to say he would renew the intimacy ; but it was said in such a manner as not to be crdited, for both said the most angry things *o each other, and his mention of the name was in provacation. lavariably the quarrels were in reference to this woman. There were differences besides this, but something trifling often ?ed to her being alluded to, and on these occassions Mr Eyes' manner would lead one to infer that the acquaintance would be renewed. Her name was brought up very often when I visited the house. I heard Mrs Eyes say that Mr Eyes had threatened her that Charlotte Johnson was coming." — David Watson, was a baker, now living at Patea. but in 1872 residedjat Picton. He helped Charlotte Johnson to remove her things from Clark's Hotel: "I put the things into the house, where she was. Mr Eyes was there. I left them together. I went again next day (Sunday). Mr Eyes was there then, in the day time ; both .were together. Charlotte Johnson afterwards came to lodge in my house. I removed her goods on Monday, I think. He visited her at my house twice while she was there, the first time coming on a Saturday, and leaving on Monday. He slept in the same room as Charlotte Johnson ; there was only one bed in the room. I remember when the~c was a bonfire in the square. I saw some efSgies burn. One was that ofa stout man ; the other, of a good looking half-caste. There was a good deal of disturbance that night addressed to me and my hous?. Mr Eyes was' in the house at the time, and Charlotte Johnson also. She remained until the following Saturday. I remember she had a horse to ride ; it came from Blenheim. I heard Charlotte Johnson and Mr Eyes speaking about it ; she said she wanted a horse to ride, and a horse came. I am clear that Mr Eyes promised to send her a horse. Afterwards I heard her ask him to buy it for her. I don't remember the name of the horse." Howard Register who had lived in Mr Eyes' service, stated that: — "I frequently heard conversations between Mr and Mrs Eyes. I remember particularly that the talk was often about Miss Johnson duri-ig the whole time I was there. Mr Eyes used to bring the subject up most frequently. He used to Jell Mrs Eye 3 she was coming here, to Blenheim. I heard him say it one Sunday after coming from Picton. He said she ivould be there in two or three days' time. The Sunday before she actually came I heard Mr Eyes say she was coming. When Mr E} r es said she was coming, he told Mrs Eyes she need not be jealous, as she was coming, and said he would walk through Blenheim arm-in-arm with her. This conversation took place in the kitchen, where I was with them both. Mrs Eyes was not at home the following Sunday, the 20th, until the evening. This was the day Charlotte Johnson arrived." Cross ■examined : "Mr Eyes did not sleep at home on the 20th, and during the week he was absent several times. When Mr Eyes told Mrs Eyes that Charlotte Johnson was coming, she told him to hold his tongue and not let everybody in the house hear what he had to say ; she was very angry. I remember the girl coming on the 20th. There were frequent disputes during the week. Mrs Eyes was very angry about it, and frequently expressed it. I never never saw her strike or pull his hair, or throw anything at him. They appeared to live very unhappily at the time, and the house was very unpleasant." Re-examined by Mr Conolly : '■ When he said Mrs Eyes need not be jealous was when he said he would walk arm-in-arm with Charlotte Johnson through Blenheim. When I was in the kitchen with Mrs Eyes, he said something about the cooking first, that was the way the thing came up. I saw Mr Eyes hold his fist up to her : I never saw her use any violence to him." Mary Ann Prichard John Smith, and Aynes Warner, gave testimony to seeing Mr Eyes leaving Mr Lawrence's house, at Blenheim when Charlotte Johnson wa3 staying there. Evidence for the defence was given I which was intended to disprove the allegation of adultery at Blenhiem. , The judge then summed up, pointing , out that though there was evidence of c condonation, so far as the admitted adultery at Wellington and Picton was concerned, j in the petitioner contuning to reside with the respondent, yet there was also evidence " that they occupied separate sleeping apartments which were not contiguous, and the respondent had not accounted for that s separation with respect to the alleged I adultery at Blenhiem, his Honor left the 1 jury to determine. The jury then retired, and were absent j about an hour and a-half. Upon their return into Court, they gave answers to the following amended issues : — 1. Whether Eleanor Eyes, the petitioner, ' has condoned the adultery committed by the respondent with Charlotte Johnson at ' Wellington and Picton, at the dates in the J petition mentioned? — No. . 3 2. Whether William Henry Eyes, the respondent, committed adultery with J Charlotte Johnson between the 20th day . ofOctober, 1872, and the Gth day of f December in the same year ? — Yes. This amounted to a verdict on both questions in favor of the petitiouer.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

MARLBOROUGH DIVORCE CASE., West Coast Times, Issue 2410, 21 June 1873

Word Count

MARLBOROUGH DIVORCE CASE. West Coast Times, Issue 2410, 21 June 1873