"NO DEFENCE AT ALL."

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 223, 20 September 1928, Page 9

"NO DEFENCE AT ALL."

EXTRAORDINARY DOCUMENT.

MAJPS STRANGE ALLEGATION.

"ASTRAL BODY" OF MAGISTRATE

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

HAMILTON, this day,

An extraordinary defence was filed in an action which was mentioned in the Supreme Court to-day, in which the Public Trustee, as receiver of the property of defendant, sued Ernest William Williams, service car garage proprietor, of Rotorua, to recover possession of property. Williams' matrimonial differences have been before both the Magistrate's Court and the Supreme Court on several occasions. Orders had been made in the Magistrate's Court, Rotorua, charging defendant's property with the payment of maintenance due to his wife and to her children. The maintenance had fallen into arrears and the Public Trustee had been appointed receiver of the property. In his defence to the present action Williams made some surprising statements. He declared that he was a Liberal Catholic by faith and that he studied the teachings of Theosophy. His moral status was quite reasonable until it became known that he intended to establish his religion on the property in dispute. Since then every effort had been made to force him to give up his religious practices and to frustrate his purpose. He went on to accuse various people both acting for (purportedly) and against him of being members of the "Free Masonic Brotherhood" who had conspired with the magistrate (another member of the brotherhood) against him. After traversing the dispute with his wife, defendant went on to say: "The magistrate's recotd of the -evidence is incorrect and incomplete. His own statement is not recorded, namely, 'You must give up your religion (and added mentally) if you want your wife back.'" "Mystic Feat Performed." Defendant proceeded to attack the judge who heard the appeal against the magistrate's decision. Throughout the proceedings, he said, the judge was against him, with the result that not only was the decision upheld but, he alleged, "the judge further demanded, 'You must give up your study of Theosophy' (and added mentally) 'He, he, I have got you this time.'" The filed defence continued: "I wish to make a statement as follows, 'That the magistrate William George Kiffen Kenrick and the judge of the Supreme Court were one and the same person. The mystic feat was performed by what is known as obsession. By permission or by strength of will the local magistrate in his astral body only forced the judge out of his usual abode and then took possession of the judge's body during the hearing of the case. After he had given his decision and made his further demand and had thrown his taunt at me 'he, he, etc.,' he retired rather hastily and the rightful owner was then able to rehabitate his own body." Defendant then recounted his sufferings by being thrown into gaol and his frustrated efforts to appeal to the Duke of York and Hi* Majesty the King. Mr. J. F. Strang to-day made an application, on behalf of the Public Trustee, to strike out the statement of evidence filed by Williams, on the grounds that the document was an abuse of a process of the Court and that it had not disclosed any defence of the action. Mr. Justice Blair explained to defendant that his defence did not comply with the rules of the Court and really did not disclose any defence at all. He would strike out the defence unless in the meantime Williams was able to make some satisfactory arrangement with tht Public Trustee. The case, therefore, was adjourned till Saturday.