MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1507, 14 December 1878, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, December 14, [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq , E.M.] Drunk and Disorderly.—A first offender was fined ss. Perjury. —William Bartlett was charged on warrant with committing wilful and corrupt perjury on December 13th. Mr E. D. Thomas appeared for the defendant. His Worship said that the alleged perjury was material to the issue, as the information the complainant had laid against her husband was for failing to support her, and for the protection of her property and learnings, but not for the commission of adultery. Under these circumstances tho information for perjury would be withdrawn. The case of neglecting to maintain her, which had been adjourned from the preceding day, was then proceeded with. Mrs Bartlett being sworn, deposed she applied for an order for protection of her property and earnings against her husband on the ground of his habitual cruelty, &c. She stated her husband left her of his own free will, and had since neglected to support her. She had received £1 in three weeks. Her husband was willing to make her a weekly allowance, and she wanted it left at aMr Wyatt’s. This the defendant declined to do, as he wanted her to call at his house every Saturday night for the money that he might, have an opportunity of abusing her. Mr Thomas contended that, under the circumstances, the Court had no power to make an order; the defendant was willing to allow his wife £1 per week and leave it at|Mr Wyatt’s. The complainant admitted she had received the money for three weeks on Saturday night, but it was in consequence of what had transpired on those occasions that she did not call again. Mr Thomas submitted that the defendant did not wish an order of the Court ma,do ; wo undertake, through him, that tha money should he paid weekly, and if ho failed on any occasion, then an information could be laid against him. The defendant said her husband had told her he should give her £1 and then consider he was free of her. He had told several people he intended to desert her. Sergeant Hughes deposed that the defendant had admitted to him that an improper intimacy existed between himself and a woman named Alice Faulkner, and that he had been paying for apartments for her. His Worship said, under the circumstances, the Court was fairly justified in making an order. An order was made that tho defendant should 'pay 20* per week, payable at the Resident Magistrate’s Court; £1 to bo paid forthwith.

Breaking into a Dwelling House. — William Wilson was informed against for haring, on December Bth, endeavoured to force and break into the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Wilson, for the purpose of seeing her and with intent to do her grievous bodily harm. Mr Holmes appeared for the defendant, and Mr Harper for the complainant. Before Mrs Wilson was sworn, Mr Holmes said, in the interests of Mrs Wilson and her family, ho was willing that the defendant should bo bound over to keep tbo peace for twelve months, the longest period the Court could bind him over, in the sum of £SOO and two sureties of £250 each. If the Court would consent to this course, all the eases would be withdrawn, and the scandal thereby avoided. Mr Harper Sidd ho would consent to this course, except in the ease of Dr. Frankish, that he would wish gone inlo. Mr Holmes said, in that ciso, ho must proceed. Mrs Wilson deposed that she was the wife of the defendant, and lived at the “ Drove,” Sydenham. She was there on t he Bth of December, between the hours of six and seven o’clock. Mr and Mrs Frankish and her son were also there. The defendant, William Wilson, drove up in his trap to the front of the gate, and stood talking to the children. She saw him alight from his trap, and ohe locked the door ; she afterwards saw him trjmg to get in at the window. He had broken it, and she saw her nurse and daughter trying to present him getting in. She heard defendant’s voice, but not what ho said. She made no attempt to prevent the children from seeing him. She and defendant had been living separate since June, 1877. Complainant said it was her signature to the deed produced. Defendant had before been bound over to keep the peace, but was not now. (Mr Holmes objected to tins evidence being taken unless the record was produced.) Cj oss-examined

by Mr Holmes —The complainant said the house she lived in had been made over to her by the defendant, the last deed having been signed in 1877. She was separated through the ill treatment of the defendant, A month before the second son was born he wilfully ill treated her, and made her black and blue, that would be about sixteen years ago. Tho ill treatment was repeated many times. It was after the settlement that she sought for a separation. Sometimes he was a good father, and at other times he would unmercifully beat his children. She had gone in between them. Since the arrangement of the deed of separation, she had taken the children to see him. She stopped this, because he took them to a hotel, which she considered objectionable. She would not have signed the deed had she not been promised tho control of the children. Had received a letter from defendant in January, 1878, asking for permission to see the children every week on Sunday. She did not send the children. She had fourteen children. No other man was on tho premises but the eldest son, twenty-one years of age, the groom, and Dr. Frankish. If the defendant had wished to force himself into the house by the window, he could have done so. Ho was strong enough. Only one pane of glass was broken. There were other doors ho could have broken into besides the front door. She heard no conversation between Dr. Frankish and her husband. She had spoken to him since the deed of separation. Had received many letters from him, at first, being civil, and terminating insultingly, [One letter written in 1878 read.] Should not bo surprised at her servant asking the defendant, when he came to the house, who he was and what he wanted. Did not know that the servant had done so. One of the little boys came to her and said, “ Papa wants to see Ell),” and she replied, “ Elly, you must go out and see your papa.” To Mr Harper—Some time before tho deed of separation was made defendant had so shamefully ill-treated her that she had been laid np for three months. Mr Harper was proceeding to ask tho complainant questions regarding tho alleged ill-treatment after the deed of sejmration, but Mr Holmes objected. Mr Harper said that his learned friend had chosen to open up tho whole question as to the ill-treatment, he submitted ho had a perfect right to show the ill-treatment after the deed of separation as well ns before it. Mr Holmes submitted his learned friend could only examine on the now facts he had brought out in cross-examination, one of which arose out, of the reading of the letter. The Court ruled that Mr Harper’s questions were in order as far as they were relevant to the letter which had been read. Cross-examination resumed—She had habitually received letters since the deed of separation. Defendant had spoken to her since the deed of separat ion ; his language had been tho reverse of kind and affectionate. His treatment had been cruel. His language, when speaking to her, was the reverse of the terms of the letter which had been read. To Mr Holmes —She did not think the defendant had spoken to her during the last twelve months. Dr. Prankish being sworn, deposed that he was at the Grove on the Bth December between six and seven. He was in the trap talking to two of his children. Afterwards he tried to force the door open. Ho recommended his son to open the door, and defendant endeavored to got admission, but his son advised him not to. Defendant then tried to get in by a window at the back of the house. He partly got in through the window, when witness pulled him back. It was a bedroom on the ground floor. He said ho would see Mrs Wilson. When he could not succeed in getting in at the window he again tried to force his way through the front door, and said ho would be back again at 12 at night. Mr Holmes here said there was another case against the defendant of using abusive and threatening language to Dr. Frankish, and if Mr Harper was willing, the time of tho Court might be saved by their being heard together. Mr Harper said he was willing, and the cases were (hen taken together. The witness then deposed the defendant had called him a d d scoundrel and would murder him yet. Defendant appeared mad with d rink. Witness remained in the house, but defendant did not return. In a lengthy cross-examination by Mr Holmes, the witness said ho had never advised Mrs Wilson not to be reconciled to her husband. He did not this morning advise her not to settle thi s case with the defendant. It, was not by witness’s advice that the complainant left, the defendant in the first instance. His wife (tho complainant’s sister) advised her, and he (witness) gave her a home. In answer to Mr Harper, the witness said he had refused to settle the present case, because it was a matter concerning his wife and children and not of Mrs Wilson’s. Witness said he knew what had brought about tho separation between complainant and defendant in the first instance. Had seen the defendant at complainant’s house eighteen months ago, before the separation. The witness was about to answer a question as to the manner of the defendant on that occasion, when Mr Holmes objected. At the request of Mr Harper, the question was put, by the Court, and the witness said it was not, of an affectionate, kindiy nature. Mr J. S. Williams being sworn, deposed he was one of the trustees under the deed of settlement, dated 31st May, 1871. “The Grove” was included in that deed. Was also a witness to the deed of separation. (Deed put, in.) This was complainant’s case, and Mr Holmes addressed the Court in defendant’s behalf, commenting on the evidence of the witnesses, for the purpose of showing there wore no grounds for binding the defendant over to keep the pence. He submitted it had not been shown in evidence that any breach of tho peace had been committed, and therefore there could be no conviction. Secondly, it, had not been shown that any language had been used calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. He then culled tho following witnesses: —Henry Qualmer deposed that, on the Bth of December, he saw the defendant at his house, the “Grays.” It, was then from four to five o’clock. He was sober when he came and when he left, and had only one glass of whiskey, neither was he excitable as if from driok. Mrs Qualmer corroborated the evidence of last, witness. J. Oram Sheppard deposed—The defendant returned to the White Hart Hotel, where he lived, on the morning of Sunday, the Bth, at six o’clock, perfectly sober; he appeared excited, but, not, from drink. Mr Harper then replied with tiie object of showing that when the deed of separation was entered info the complainant was intended to have the solo control of her children, and defendant had eonvonanted that, he had no right of going to tho house of complainant for the purpose of seeing thorn, although he could see them elsewhere. Ho also submitted that the defendant had not tho shadow of a right in the property that was vested in the trustees under the settlement. His Worship said it was a great pity that all tho unpleasant evidence they had heard had been brought forward, as it would only tend to embitter the parties more and more. Ho thought the evidence in tho case of Wilson v. Wilson had shown there was that in the disposition of tho defendant that made it necessary ho should he hound over to keep the peace. Ho should not have gone to tho house; it was a matter for forbearance and judicious management on both sides. Tho action taken by Dr. Frankish was doubtless calculated to excite tho defendant, but at the same time ho had no right to have gone there. If the course that had been suggested by Mr Holmes in the first instance had been taken, of having the defendant hound over to keep tho peace against, all her Majesty’s subjects, it would have been much better. That course would now have to ho taken, and it, would embrace both cases, Mr Holmes said ho had no objection to this, and the third case of Wilson y. Wilson could then lie withdrawn, Mr Harper suggestod that his Worship might settle the question as to how, when, and where he might, see his children for the future. His W orship declined to do that, as ho thought it was a question for mutual arrangemets. Mr Holmes intimated that steps would have to be taken fur the defendant to obtain possession of his children, to which lie was legally entitled. Mr Harper said that in that case lie would he prepared to argue the matter elsewhere. The defendant, was then bound over to keep the peace for twelvemonths in his own recognisance of £SOO,