MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1488, 22 November 1878, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, November 22. (Before GK L. Meliish, Esq., R.M.) Indecency. —Mary Cunningham and James Myers were charged with this offence. The prisoners admitted being drunk, but had no recollection of anything that had taken place. Information had been given to the police by some females who had witnessed the occurrence. They had all been subpoenaed, but none of them were present. Evidence was then given by the arresting constable, and at the request of the Inspector of Police, who said one of the female witnesses might yet turn up in the course of the morning, and there was another case to be heard, the case was put back for a time. Later on one of the witnesses appeared and gave evidence, which sheeted home the offence to both prisoners. The male prisoner, who had not been before the Court before, was fined £5, and the female to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Assault. Alfred Walker was charged with violently assaulting his wife, Eliza Walker, on or about October 15th. Mr O’Neill appeared for the defendant. Kate Mott, a dressmaker, residing in Durham street north, said defendant lived next door to her about six monthp. They left some time back. Shortly before that Mrs Walker put a note through the fence to her, and subsequently she asked her to destroy it. Witness had destroyed the note, and was about, to state the contents, when defendant’s solicitor objected. The objection was allowed. Mr Inspector Hickson stating its contents could be pressed later on by the evidence of other witnesses. The witness resumed About amonth ago Mrs Walker was fastened out of her house and the defendant pushed her in. Witness sent a little boy for a constable. Directly afterwards she could hear the defendant beating his wife and the children screaming “ Don’t beat mother.” She could hear Walker crying inside. This was about ten o’clock at night. It was the next morning she received the note she had previously spoken of. Witness, in consequence of that note, went for Dr. Frankish to come and see defendant’s wife, and ho came in the evening. Dr. Frankish being sworn, said he was called on by the last witness on 16th October to see Mrs Walker and he went, lie examined her and found a considerable number of bruises about her person, one the size of the palm of his hand. The bruises were very recent, and appeared to have been caused by blows. Witness had attended her for some months previously, and she complained of being ;n great pain from the blows. The injuries might have taken place the previous day. Mrs Walker, wife of defendant, being sworn, b aid she remembered being in the house of Mrs Nott on the evening of October 15th, about 8 o’clock. Her husband came in for ber, they quarrelled, and he took her inside, and in going inside cither kicked or pushed her When inside they had words. Mrs Unit said she would send for the doctor, but witness asked her on paper not to say that she (witness) had sent for the doctor. The doctor came to sec her on the 16th. She was suffering from an inward complaint, but from nothing else. The doctor saw some marks on her, but she made no compliant. There was a black mark, and a swelling from the kick. She had been ill for some time, but not from any treatment she had received from the defendant. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill— Witness said she did not initiate the proceedings, but came to the Court because she had been subpoorud. Had had no quarrel with her husband since the 16' h of October. In answer to Mr Inspector Hicks m witness said the quarrel she had had with her husband that night was not in consequence of a young woman named Sutliff. The witness (who gave her evidence most reluctantly), in answer to questions from Inspector Hickson whether her husband had not systematically beaten and ill-used heron account of his intimacy with this female, said the defendant hud not ill-treated her lately. The woman Sutiiff’s name had not been mentioned between them. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill, the witness said site had never complained— His Worship | complained p That’s it” of her husj band’s ill-treatment so much us of his carelessness anti neglect. The next wifcI ness culled was Mr James Nancarrow, who ; game time back was a neighbor of the de--1 fendint’s and his landlord. Mr O’Neill ' objected to the witness giving evidence on

legal grounds, which were overruled by the Bench, his Worship stating it was an exceptional and peculiar case, and the interests of justice and humanity demanded that no steps should be neglected to arrive at the facts. The case had been brought forward in consequence of repeated complaints that hud been made of the defendant’s systematic ill-treatment of his wife, and under the circumstances he thought it imperatively neco-sary that some of the witnesses who bad been subpoenaed to give evidence should be heard, although, strictly speaking, it might be slightly irregular. James Nancarrow, fruiterer, Colombo street, was then sworn. He said he had known the defendant and his wife for three years. They had been tenants of his for two years. Mr O’Neill again objected to this witness being heard, but his Worship said he should decide to hear him for the purpose of proving whether the complaint that had been made, that the defendant’s wife had been so systematically ill treated, that she had been reduced to such a state of terrorism by the defendant’s brutality that these proceedings land, been brought without her consent. The witness then proceeded to say that last January and February he bad heard the defendant beat his wife so unmercifully that she cried for mercy, and could not get up the next day. Witness beard bis wife say tbe defendant’s wife bad told ber that her husband had almost choked her, and that she was in a state of great suffering from His violence. Had himself also heard the defendant's children screaming, “ Oh, father, don’t beat mother,” and the little child that had clung about her father to prevent the blows falling on her mother bad received some of them. Witness said the defendant had treated his wife worse than ho (witness) would treat a dog. Defendant had also at times scarcely left his wife sufficient means to keep her from starvation. He had heard her say if she remained with her husband she could not live, and she wished she could go to Hobart Town if her children were only provided for, and she never wished to see her husband or Maggie SutHIT again. Had also heard defendant’s wife say she was dreadfully bruised. Had on occasions given her biscuits and fruit out of the shop, and on one occasion when his wife had given her some food she had cooked for her she said it was the first animal food she had had for a week. Was aware that defendant’s wife bad a private income of her own, and that tbe last time she received her money her husband went to the post office, made her cash the order, and took all the money from her but one pound. On being questioned by Mr O'Neill, Mrs Walker said tbe witness was slightly exaggerating, there had been bread and meat in the house, but not the things that were necessary for an invalid. Mr Inspector Hickson said the evidence of the last witness could bo corroborated by many others, but the Bench ruled that it was unnecessary to call them. Mr O’Neill then addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant, and said it was a very painful case, and the cause of their disagreement had evidently been tbo girl Suthff. Tha'. ciuso removed, lie had no doubt they would live amicably together, and the wife would ho no bettor for being deprived of her husband’s support. While admitting tbo propriety of binding over the defendant, still lie hoped the Bench would not make the sureties too heavy. His Worship stiid Mr O’Neill was making the beat, of a bad case. He seriously reprimanded the defendant, and commented in the strongest terms on his unmanliness and brutality in kicking a woman, and in this case it was still more cruel and unmanly considering her delicate state of health. He d d not think any one in the Court had the slightest doubt as to the conduct of defendant to his wife, who throughout the whole of the proceedings had endeavored by every means in hi r power to shield him. Addressing Mrs Walker, Ins Worship said her best course would be to apply for a divorce against ber husband as the only chance of escaping a life of constant ill-treatment. Mrs Walker said she did not wish for a divorce. The defendant was then ordered 'o find two sureties of £SO each, ai d enter into a bond of £IOO to keep the peace towards his wife for twelve months. The expenses of four witnesses were allowed. Three of them stated their wish to devote the money to a charitable purpose, and his Worship suggested the Orphanage at Lyttelton. Tins they consented to, and the sum of 18s was handed to the Bench for the purpose ho had pointed out.