Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume VIII, Issue 44, 23 September 1886, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

Wednesday, 22nd September, 1886. (Before E. Ward, Esq., R.M.) HUSBAWD AND "WIFE. L. Doreen v. E. Doreen. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff, and Mr Hawkins with Mr Staite for defendant, who was charged with wife desertion, and failing to contribute to her •• v. port. He pleaded not guilty. Mr Sandilands opened the ease. He stated that an agreement to separate had been made, and a sum of £20 paid by defendant. This sum was expended by plaintiff in purchasing the necessaries of life, and paying debts of the defendant. Mrs Doreen finding she was unable to support herself and child had— through her solicitors Messrs Prior and Sandilands — applied to her husband to contribute towards her support. The Borough Council had been paying a small sum weekly for their support, and private parties had made charitable provision. Mr Sandilands quoted a number of authorities to show the law of the case. L. Doreen deposed : She was wife of defendant ; had been married six years next Christmas; had lived with her husband about five years; her husband left her in November ; signed a paper at Palmerston with her husband (paper produced) ; when the paper was signed went back to tho house in Queen street, Feilding ; her husband would not say why he wanted the deed signed ; he said he had nothing against her; he had left her before for three months in Danevirko; her credit was then stopped in Palmerston North; when she came home to* Feilding after signing the deed/ her husband was at the house ; he stopped there two nights; the first night he occupied the back bedroom, but the second night the front one, when they occupied the same bed; on Monday he put her name in the paper, and stopped her credit ; he then went to Halcombe to his brother; saw him several times after that and spoke to him; asked him if he was coming: back to make up his home, as the separation was broke; when separated got £20 from defendant; this was expended mostly in food, and clothing for the child; have had no more money from her husband; after the money was spent, she went to service; put the child out at Palmerston ; (1.0. U. for £6 48 6d to J. Morris, of Palmerston, for maintenance of child, produced ; also receipt for clothing' account produced) ; her child is not strong, and for a long time she was at home ill — that is since herhusb&nd left ; is unable to support herself and child ; Mrs Evans and Mr Lethbridge assisted her to live-; the Borough Council allows her 5s per week until next meeting. Cross-examined by Mr Hawkins; Mr Haultaiu wrote out the receipt, because the woman was going to summons plaintiff ; could not say what she had spent on the child ; the -, £20 had lasted about six months; paid over £2 at Bulls to a brewer ; hctd ordered the beer with her husband's consent ; had drunk no porter since; paid Keen 10s for a pair of boots ; had bought two pairs of boots and one dress out of the £20 ; bought some jswelery at Palmerston which cost £2.; this was bought the samo day she got the £20 ; the chain is now pawned in Palmerston ; there was no furniture in the house except two beds and two chairs ; had a sewing machino, and some pictures; had no tools of his; had some articles (enumerated) ; sold all these before she left Feilding four months ago; got £3 for tho whole; sold them to different parties; had been to Hawera, Wanganui, and Palmerston ; was three days with Mrs Watkins in Wanganui ; did not stop at any other house there ; did not stop at a house of ill fame in Wanganui ; she received a letter from her father requesting her not to do something; the baby was not— in consequence— taken to Wanganui, because the person who had it refused to keep it ; stayed at Dowick's at Palmerston a few days, then went to Halcombe; earned money for travelling when at service; stayed once or twice at Carroll's in Palmerston. (The Bench here said even if sfc« had misbehaved herself ft would make no difference under the Act, if she was. proved to be a destitute person). Was at service at Hawera at 10s per week for four weeks, but could not do the work ; went to tho Railway Hotel ; had Ids a week for six weekswas at service at Palmerston four weeks at 10s a week; was not strong enough, and had to leave; had not earned anything by sewing ; her husband left her a house to live in ; had not paid the 5s a week she covenanted to pay her husband ; could live on 10s 1 a week ; when at.service she had her board free; Mrs John Doreen said she wouldn't mind to take the baby, but she had so many of her own ; her husband had not offered to take tho I baby ; had not refused to let him have the child ; was not unwilling to give him the child. ..« / The Bench said the best way would 1 be to give the ohild to the husband a Mr Sandilands thought it would W '* hard to take the child from the mother. ■-" The Bench said that Section 28 of- ' the Act gave him power to dispose of < the child. * Mrs Doreen said she would prefer to keep the ohild, and let tho husband pay for it. Cross examination continued: Owed Dr Johnston an account for medicine ; did not know what it was for; was ill in bed about two months ago; had now quite recovered. ■ Re-examined by Mr Sandilands : Went to Hawera looking for employment ; paid her own railway, fares ; left service beoause she was not strong enough to do servant's ; work ; was in . good health before she was married. Mary Evans deposed : She ■= was: tho wife of Mr Thomas Evans, foreman for Mr Saxon ; had been in Feilding 15 years ; knew Mrs Doreen before and after her marriage j she was net very

strong; she had been supported by j •witness witli food ami firewood for ; some time ; she was strong enough I ior light housework ; this is not to be got in Feilding, where they go in for good upstanding girls ; it is not easy to get work as a dressmaker in Feilding. Cross-examined: Had asked Mrs DoMjen to go and seek for work ; employed Mrs Doreen when she had sewing to do; she could earn Is 6d a day and her food; knew nothing of Doreen either for or against him. Mr Hawkins, for the defence, said ; the defendant was charged with wife j desertion. He took it it would have _ to be proved he had deserted his wife. He referred to the deed of separation between the parties. if Edward Doreen deposed : He was . the husband of plaintiff; had heard) the evidence of his wife with reference to what had taken, place on the 21st of November after the deed was executed ; remembered sleeping one night in the house; occupied a separate room ; went to get some things away; had no breakfast there ; is a bushmen by occupation ; had not been in work fur some time ; had a job in Blenheim, but was arrested before he could get to work ; was destitute at present ; could not even pay his lawyers fee ; the total value .of furniture left in the house with his wife was £14 ; was willing to take the child ; could look after it ; would place it with a sister in Palmerston, who is anxious to take the child; her husband— Mr Wylde — has no objection. Cross-examined by Mr Sandilands : Went for his clothes when he visited his wife; left the morning of the se-i md day ; had sent no messages to her ; the house belongs to Mr Wylde; it was never witness', but had borrowed money on it ; bought the house •with borrowed money; tho houso is Hot his until he has paid for it ; had paid no rent, but had paid interest ; his wife had asked him to come back again ; remembered receiving a letter from Prior and Sandilands, asking him to support his wife ; had not occupied his wife's room since the separation; would not swear his wife had told him he had broken the deed. His Worship said, as to the deed, he did not think he should say whether it was good or bad, but it did not bar au action of this kind. Parties could not by deed put themselves beyond the power of the Destitute Persons Act. He was inclined to think the woman was able to earn her living at light work. She was incapable of hard work. The child would have to be provided for, and he thought it would be a proper course for the husband to have the child, but it would first have to be shown she was an improper person. The husband woul d have to contribute 7s a week for the maintenance of the child, to be paid every four weeks. Mr Sandilands asked that Dnreeia should be made to find securities. He also asked that counsels fees be allowed. This the Court said it had no power ftu do. j The application for a security was D«»t grunted. DEBT CASES. Halcomhe and Sherwill v. Moko Moko— Claim £37 9s 1 Id. This was j au adjournment on a judgment summons. The case was again adjourned ! for a fortnight. Juhu Nicols v. Turner.— Claim £5. Case withdrawn. j Defendant deposed that he hud rec«?ive<l tho notice of withdrawal at 6 p.m. <»n Tuesday. Mr Saudi! inds applied for witnesses expenses and counsel's fee, in all £2 7a 4d. Application granted. W. Gk Haybittle v. D. E. Amesbury.—Claim £8 7s lOd Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, and Mr Staite for defendant. This claim was not disputed. Mr Staite applied for one month to pay for the amount. Application granted with costs and counsels fees. _ j J. Jensen v. C. Humphrey. — Claim £1 Is. Case adjourned to next court day. The court then adjourned. _ i