SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

Kumara Times, Issue 3078, 14 September 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

[from our own correspondent.]

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

Monday, September 13,

[Before His Honor Chief Justice Prendergast.]

His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 10 a.m.

The following grand jury was empanelled :—Messrs C. F. A. Broad, C. J. M'Beath, W. Duncan, A. Appel, J. M'Whirter, J. Grimniond, M. M'Jaunet, P. L. Diguuti, G. Rodda, A. C. Campbell, J. C. Malfroy, H. L. Michel, F. Mown, W. Nicholson, J. Peake, W. H. Ridings, IT. R. Rae, G. Benning, P. D. Todd, D. Callen, J. R. Hudson, and J. Holmes. Mr P. L. Dignan was chosen foreman.

His Honor, in addressing the grand jury said : Gentlemen—There are two cases for the consideration of the grand jury, the first of which is a simple larceny case; the second is a libel case. His Honor at full length explaiued the nature of such cases, especially in regard to newspapers. It was not necessary to inquire into the troth of the alleged libel, but simply whether the articles contain defamatory matter. The grand jury then retired.

The names of the petty jury were called. Mr John Moore was fined 40s for non-attendance.

Theforeman ofthegrandjury returned into the Court with a true bill in the case of RKGINA V. GARLAND.—INDICTMENT OF LARCENY. Accused was charged with stealing a silver match and chain of- the value of £7 10s, the property of John Clifford, of Greymouth. Accused pleaded " Guilty."

Mr Purkiss, Crown Prosecutor, stated that although there were no previous convictions against the accused, he bore a Imd character. Accused's age is 15 years and 2 months. In answer to the usual question why sentence should not be passed upon him, accused said he had " nothing to say." His Honor deferred sentence till tomorrow morning.

ALLEGED LIBEL.—NORTHCROFT V, CURLE.

The grand jury, after an absence of one hoar, returned with a verdict of "No true bill" in the case of Northcroft v. Curie.

His Honor then discharged the grand jury.

CIVIL JURISDICTION. The Court business was then proceeded with. LEWIS V. LEWIS AND BULLING. This was an action brought by MiLewis, butcher, of Stafford, against Margaret Lewis and William Bulling, for dissolution of marriage, on the ground of alleged adultery and desertion.

Mr Lewis, and with him Mr Harvey, appeared for petitioner; Mr Park for respondent.

Respondent pleaded condonation of adultery, bigamy and adultery on the part of petitioner ; and denied adultery with corespondent.

Trie following jury were empanelled:—Messrs J. Berry, J. Jansen, G. Purviss, M. Curtis, A. Diss, F. Morton, J. Nicholson, M. Bed, M. Bell, R. Keddie, D. M'Farlane, James Leasham. Mr Berry was chosen foreman.

Mr Lewis, for the petitioner, opened the case, and stated the facts of the case. It appeared that petitioner married the respondent in 1868 at Brighton, New Zealand, whence they went to TowDSville (Queensland). At this pinco respondent was sentenced to vaiious terms of imprisonment on charges of drunkenness and disorderly conduct. After her release from gaol, she did not, return to her husband; but, having a Urge portion of her husband's money in her posesaion, she deserted him. Petitioner followed her to various colonies, and at last came to New Zealand, and settled down at Stafford Town.' For many years he did not hear anything of respondent, and believed her to be dead. In the year 1878 petitioner married a second wif.', a certain Annie Duncan, now deceased, being under the impression that respondent was dead, who, however in the year ISB2, suddenly turned up and claimed her rights aa petitioner's wife. The allegation that he cohabited with respondent at this juncture was denied by petitioner, as also the statement that he treated her cruelly and threw her out. He then called

John E. Lewis, petitioner, who, on being sworn, gave evidence as to the facts related above. Witness narrated his nereginations in Bearch of hi« wife: how he followed her to Rockhampton, Sydney, Victoria, etc. At Melbourne he could get no tidings whatever of his

wife, and he thought that respondent had gone to Hokitika, whence they started originally together. All this happened in 1869. He went to Hokitika andfortwelvemonthsmadestringent researches as to the whereabouts of°his wife, but could not trace her.

At ihis stage the Court adiourned till 2 p.m.

The Court resumed at 2 p.m. Mr Lewis continued to give his evidence : Up to December. 1878, petitioner lived alone at Stafford Town, where he kept a butcher's shop. On the sth of December, 1878, he married Annie Duncan, who died in October last year. He knew this second wife for about six or eight months; he did not. know that respondent was living at that time. About two yeara after his marriage with A. Duncau he heard of his first wife. The police then brought a letter to him from respondent, inquiring after him. He then knew for the first time that she was alive; he believed the letter came from Cooktown, in Queensland. In 1882 she came to Si afford Town, where Bhe lived in a cottage near to his house. She spoke to him first; she explained to him that •she was .his first wife. He then told her that he had married again. She went away to Hokitika. There was hut very little conversation. A short time after that she returned, with some furniture. He was taken aback, and did not know what to do under the circomstances. He consented that she should enter on the premises. All the time she was at Stafford she was staying at a Tempeiance Hotel. He had a boy with him at that time, who unfortunately left him. A little later he consulted a 'awyer, who told him he had done wrong in lotting her in. He never contributed anything towards her maintenance; she never asked for it. He had known co-respondent for a number of years; he met him one day accidentally in Revell street. Of his personal knowledge he could not say tint respondent committed adultery with co-respondent. Up to 1884 he was not in a position to institute proceedings against her. He was aware that respondent charged him with adultery with Mrs Stephens. It was not true.

Cross-examined by Mr Park: While at Townsville respondent wub convieied of riotous conduct. She was arrested at his house at 9 p.m. Respondent was drunk. He could not say what the row was about. He uever lifted his hand to her. She was then taken away and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, which she served at Cardville which is midway between Townsville and Rockhampton. He then went to Rockhampton, where he learned that respondent was released from gaol. He learned that she had gone to Sydney; he followed her there, and then to Melbourne. He had left no word at Sydney that he was goin" to New Zealand. She had about £3OO or .£420 of our joint property, which was deposited at Sydney, and of which she had the receipts in her possession when arrested.

[His Honour reprimanded severely the witness here, telling him to answer straightforwardly and not indulge in laughter.]

Cross-examination continued: At Rockhamptou and Sydney he found reariily traces of her, but could not hear anything of her at Melbourne. Tn 1869 he got a letter from her from Mr O'Brien, wine and spirit merchant at Gym pie, stating that Mr 9 Lewis had been up there, and that she was going to the West Coast where he (petitioner) at that time was. She had no power of attorney. About two years after he was married to his second wife, he heard of his first wifo. He wrote six letters to various people inquiring after her. He never wrote again to Gym pin. When at Stafford he worked first as a journeyman butcher, and Inter started a butcber's shop for himself. When he married Annie Duncan he did not know that his first wife was living. He knew a Mrs Stephens, who paid frequent visits to the house during his wife's sickness. Mrs Stephens never stayed at the house, she was there only during the day. She cooked all the meals; she went home with her husband, sometimes at 10 p.m., sometimes later. He had never taken a walk with Mis Stephens; he did not recollect that he ever did.' She had a child in her arms. He did not know that her husband had prohibited his wife to visit his house;, her husband on several occasions dined on Sunday at his house. Mrs Stephens was a sunday-school teacher. She gave it up immediately after my wife died. On the 21st February last Mr Stephens did not come to his house (as far as be was aware) and tell Mrs Stephens that she should cense her visits to him. She had tha baby with her. Ho would Mvear that he never said to Mr Stepheus that he had any-

thing to do with the child. Mrs Stephens said she would not go back to her husband; she slept that night at an hotel. He did not pay for the bed, and never asked anybody to pay for it. Her husbaud then told the various landlords not to give her a bed in future. During the day, she was at my house doing the household work. He went to Mr Cribben, hotel-keeper, to make arrangements with him. She had ben a fortnight in his house; she never occupied the same Ix-d with hiru. She then left Stafford with her baby. He saw the child dead in her house at Hokitika. He went to the funeral; he did not pay for it; he gave her 10s a week for house-keeping. He never made any inquiries as to who paid for the burial. He was aware that Mr Jack had asked him for the money. He went to Mr Jack's house, and told him that Mr Stephens was alive, and be should pay for it. He had seeu Mrs Stephens several times in Hokitika ; he did not intend to marry her. He never took her in his cart to Stafford. Regarding respondent, witness stated that he turned her out of his house at Stafford in consequence of legal advice received. He saw her at Lynch's before she came to Stafford. He did not recollect that he told her to come to Stafford. He told her that he was married to Annie Duncan. He never offered her any money; he believed that she had money. She did not ask him to sign deeds. Mr Button did not send anything out, neither did Mr Street. He had written to a detective in Auckland, who received £5 from respondt-nt in order that he should not tell him whore she was. That letter the detective gave to respondent in New South Wales. By Mr Harvey : He could swpar distinctly that it was in 1869 that he had last heard of respondent when he married Annie Duncan. About 1881 or 1882 he received the first intimation that she was still alive. The relations with Mrs Stephens wer« very familiar, because she was so kind to my wife during her illness. He never had any undue connection with Mrs Stephens. The ten shillings he paid her was for her lubonr, it was her remuneration for her services performed at his house. Her husband is a miner. Her husband took tea every night with him and his wife, and as a rnle he went home with her.

To His Honour : Mrs Stephens had two children • the oldest was going to school, it had always its meals with me. He understood that it was the wish of Mr Stephens that his wife should keep house for him.

Joseph Giles, sworn said: lam Resident Magistrate. I recollect on Bth March, 1882, an application of Margaret Lewis for a protection order. She then said to me that she had a letter from her husband through Detective Dwyer, at Auckland, that was four years after she left him. In her evidence she stated that she had over £3OO in her possession when she went to gaol. [Witness read the whole of the evidence as given before him in 1882, during the hearing of the application for protection.] [To be continued.]

[By Telegraph.]

Hokitika, September 14

Henry Garland, for larceny, was brought up this morning and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour. The seduction case, Taylor v. Wolfe, is now proceeding.