CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4133, 26 May 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, May 26. (Before K. Ramsay, Esq., J.P., and J. Griffen, Esq., J.P.)

Drunkenness.— John Smith and Lina O’Gallaghan were each fined ss, in default twenty-fonr hours’ imprisonment. Wife Desertion.— William Gregg, ironfounder, of South Dunedin, was charged with deserting his wife and child.—Mr Cook appeared for Margaret Gregg, the complainant, Mr Denniston for defendant.—The circumstances were shortly these : —Complainant had been married for some years and had four children, three of whom were with the father and the infant with the complainant. The complainant was ordered to leave her husband’s house three weeks after her confinement. She left his home, and he had since offered to take her back home. On one occasion he said he wished to get rid of her to put a better woman in her place.—The Bench considered there was a case to answer, and Mr Oenniston then called complainant, whom he had not cross-examined. She admitted that she had not lived on friendly terms with her husband. He was jealous of her, and had stated that the youngest child was pot his. He had never disclosed the name of the party whom he supposed to be the putative father. He had mixed her name with three men, but did not say which of them he suspected. After leaving her husband’s home she went to the house where two of these men lived, and stopped there four days. After Gregg was charged at the Supreme Court with assault, she consulted a lawyer as to getting a divorce. She refused to go back to his house as his wife while he was under the roof. Re-examined ; The first cause of dissension between herself and her husband was the trial of Gregg for an assault on her sister. He was acquitted on that charge.—The Bench considered the evidence insufficient to support the information. Seeing that the parties could not live amicably together, they would suggest that defendant make some arrangement for his wife’s support.—Mr Denniston replied that a distinct averment on the husband’s part that he could not possibly be the father of the youngest child the cause of the disagreement. Defendant was out of work, and had to support bis family; but some arrangement might be c me to.