SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1206, 15 January 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS UNDER DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT. Tuesday, Janfaby 15. ["Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court sat at 10 a.m. in its divorce and matrimonial jurisdiction. TODD V. TODD. This was a petition by Mary Todd, of Winchester, in the County of Geraldine, praying for n judicial separation from her husband, William Todd, on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The case now came before the Court for trial of the facts before a jury. Mr George Harper appeared for the peti. tioner. The renpondent was unrepresented, by cQwwel, au4 did eot f '

The following questions were submitted to the jury for their verdict : 1 Whether Mary Todd the petitioner was on the 23rd day of December 1871 married to W. Todd the "respondent ? 2. Whether Mary Todd the petitioner lived and' cohabited with the respondent at Winchester in the County of Geraldine and have the petitioner and respondent had any issue.-' 3. Whether on the 23rd December 1870 and on other davs between that da/ and the Ist September 1877 William Todd the respondent has been guilty of great cruelty to Mary Todd the petitioner ? 1. Whether William Todd the respondeat has deserted Mary Todd the petitioner without any cause r Mr Harper intimated that the petition contained an allegation as to de.-ertion, which it could not legally sustain, so that this part of the petitin-i could not be sustained. The petition alleged desertion, but it could not sustain it according to the Act, which stated that desertion to be legally pleaded must be for over two years. The allegation of cruelty would, * however, be sustained by the evidence which he should lead. The case was that on the 23rd December, 1871, the petitioner was married to the respondent, at Temuka, and that at times during the three years following the petitioner experienced systematic cruelty at the hands of the respondent, and in September, 1877, the respondent finally deserted the petitioner. He should abandon the issue raised for desertion, as stated by him, on the "round that the desertion did not come within the scope of the Act. The learned counsel then quoted from "Brown on Divorce" to show what constituted cruelty. Mr Harper called the following evidence : William Lee —I am a Wesleyan Minister, and on the official list of officiating ministers. [Certificate put in of marriage of parties to Buit.] I married the petitioner and respondent at Temuka in 1874. I recognise the person now in Court as Mary Wilson, now Mary Todd, who was married by me in December, 1871, to William Todd. Mary Todd—l am the petitioner in this case and the wife of the respondent. I was married by Rev. Mr Lee on 23rd December, 1874. Since my marriage, I have lived between Temuka and Winchester. I have had no children by the marriage. My husband is a farmer, and we lived together in a house of our own. My husband was always veiy severe to me, and could not get enough of work out of me, even when I was unable fco do it. Besides housework, I had to shepherd sheep, milk cows, and go into the harvest field when required. My husband farmed 100 acres, 50 of which were his own and 50 leased. About three months after we were married my husband began to ill-use me, by beiDg cruel and using harsh words to me. "Once he used the stockwhip to me, when I could not milk a young cow, and cut me in the eye. The cow was quite wild and had never been handled before, and I was unable to tie her up myself. He often kicked me with his boots. About two years ago he kicked me about the body for not getting up at 3 a.m. I was very tired with harvest work and scarcely able to stand. My husband wore large strong boots, and kicked me several times about the legs and body. I told him at the time he had hurt me. He then said he would give mo more. I than went to run away, and he kicked me again inside the gate. The respondent had three children by a former marriage. I attended to them as well as possible, as I was scarcely ever in the house. One day I asked his little girl, about eleven years of age, to fill some potatoes into a bucket for me. He said ,( no," and I said " Why shouldn't she ?" He then raised his fist, struck me in the eye, and knocked me down. One morning in spring (timo I was very ill, having had no sleep all nigkt. Respondent came to me abovit 6 o'clock, and having got up and lit the fire, he got hold of me by the hair of the head, dragged me out of bed to the fire and burnt all the hair off one side Gf my head. My face was not burnt, as he took off his coat when he saw my hair burning and put it round my head. He has often struck me since these acts of violence. He deserted me about seven months ago, and had struck me several times between burning my hair and deserting me. Respondent was in gaol for six months for beating his child. When he deserted me he gold off his place and said he did not want to have anything more to do with me. He sold stock, farm, and everything. Ido not know whether he took the children with him, but I heard that he put the children into the Reformatory. I have been earning my own living at washing and service since September, 1877. I have never received any money from respondent. My husband has turned me out of the house many times, and I have often stopped out till the morning in the stable and elsewhere on tho farm. We had no neighbors nearer t han a quarter of a mile. I have no relations in the colony. I had been out only about flevfc.n or eight months when I married. My husbaod wanted me to go to a doctor when he saw the state of my face after hitting me with the .stockwhip, but I did not. He was a mail of very violent passions. My husband took me to Amberley and left me there without money, or boots on my feet. He left me entirely destitute, and I had to take in washing to support myself. I am now acting as housekeeper for a gentleman and his family at the Point. Mr Young, the hotelkeeper at Winchester, kid the information against respondent tor beating his child. The child was adopted afterwards by a lady and gentleman in Timaru. By hifl Honor: We were always quarrelling. Ido not lose my temper, and did not give him any occasion to quarrel with me. It was always work which we quarrelkd over. He could not get enough out of mc. I was unable to do what he wanted me, and then wo would quarrel. He never found fault with me for anything else. I never saw him treat hiß children kindly, nor did he pay much attenton to them. He never blamed me for not looking after the children properly, nor had we any quarrel about them except the one I have related. His first wife had not been •lead more than six months when we were jnariried. I was in service with Mr Meyers, farmer, Temuka, before wo were married. Ellen Connelly—l reside in Winchester, and jm wife of Thomas Connelly, farmer. I know the petitioner and her husband. I have known .the latter for about eleven years. 1 have been at Todd's house since tbeii marriage. I saw petitioner with a swollen face, and she told mo her husband had struck her.

Geoiw Cliff—l am a fanner a'. Temuka. .1 know petitioner and respondent, and fcavt done so since their My house ic about a quarter of a mill from chat occupied by Mr Tcdd. I have geec Mrs Todd with Jjer face ti«(J -jp, and it «r« flwmiscd that he

hud been beating her. This was about fifteen or sixteen months ago. Bj his Honor—Mr Todd never made any complaint to me. I never saw any acts of violence. Todd was a very passionate man. This closed the case for the petitioner, Mr Harper stating that this was all the evidence they could procure. A juryman inquired if notice had been given to the respondent of this trial. " His Honor said that the jury must assume thai all things had been done to bring the respondent within the < 'ourt before the case could have been put before a jury. Mr Harper said that the affidavit on the citation proved that the respondent had been served personally with a notice of trial at Wellington. His Honor having briefly summed up. the ■jury returned a verdict for the petitioner on lill the questions submitted, finding on the one fur desertion that the respondent deserted the petitioner from September, 1877. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, when the cane, of Henry v Henry, for judicial separation, will be tuken.