SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

Kumara Times, Issue 3079, 15 September 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

[from otjr own correspondent.] CIVIL JURISDICTION. Monday, September 13. [Before His Honor Chief Justice Prendergast.] LEWIS V. LEWIS AND BtTLLING. This was an action brought by Mr Lewis, butcher, of Staffotd, against Margaret Lewis and William Bulling, fur dissolution of marriage, on the Riound 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 co-respondent.

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

The following is a continuation and the conclusion of the evidence, and the verdict of the jury in this case : W. Bulling, sworn, said: I am a laborer. I am the Co-respondent in this case. lam a single man. I know Mrs Lewis, the respondent. I have known petitioner for about seventeen or eighteen years. I have known Mm Lewis for four years. I have visited her, aod she came to my house. I knew her at Rimu and at Hokitika ; I visited her at both places. There was the greatest intimacy between me and her. She lives about one hundred yaid.s from my place. I cannot say that T committed adultery with respondent. I did so for the first time in 1882, shortly after she landed. She then went to Rimu, where I visited her. In the latter part of 1883 she returned to Hokitika. I was then intimate wiih her. Her reputation is tirything but good ; she is a common prostitute.

Cross-examined by Mr Park: I was present at the wharf when she landed. She then went to Stafford. When she retiii ned, I shifted her things for her to a house on Gibson's Quay. I put up the bed for her. I have done woik for her on different occasions. She came to my house for the purpose of having improper intercourse with me. It is about two years ago that I told Mr Lewis of what was going on between mo and respondent. Mr Lewis said it did not matter to him.

W. Newrick, sworn, said: I am a boarding-house keeper at Stafford. I remember the time when respondent came to Stafford. Petitioner stopped at my lionse during the time respondent was at Stafford.

Cross-examined by Mr Park: I know Mr Stephens and his wife; she slept one night at my place. I did not got paid for it. John Jerome Breeze, sworn, said : I am Town Crier. I have known the respondent for a number of years : she lives opposite to my house. I believe that she is a common prostitute; white, black, and China men are visitina her. Cross-examined by Mr Park: I never spoke to petitioner about the conduct of his wife; it was not my business to inquire into the matter. George Sutton, swot n, said : I am a hawker, living at Hokitika. I know respondent. I have lived next door to her for the last sixteen years j she has lived there for about two years. I often see different people going in and out by day and night. I have seen Chinamen about the House. I have seen Bulling going in and out, and I have also seen her going to his house. Cross-examined by Mr Park: I do not know what these men went into her house for.

Hugh ITamit, sworn, said: lam a laborer. I know the respondent. I have visited her one night, to shift several things. When I went in, there was nobody with her but another woman. Three Chinamen came in later. She said to me "This is the way to make money." She went with the men into her bedroom.

George Raike, sworn, said : I am a wheelwright, residing in Hokitika. I live about opposite the house of respondent. I would say that she is a common prostitute.

Elizabeth Harbindsen, sworn, said : Respondent lives near my house; I do not think she has a good character. I have Been men going in and out. Elizabeth Stephens, sworn, Raid: I am the wife of Frederick Stephens. I have lived at Stafford. I have known petitioner for sixteen years. I am married for thirteen years. It is not true that I committed adu'tery with petitioner.

Cross-examined by Mr Park: 1 defy nnyone to say that I stayed with MiLewis in his house; I was one uight in his house, and that was the night when Mr Lewis slept at Mr Cribbens'. I received 10s a week for the work I "was doing. My husband attempted to take my life : that is the reason J left him. My husband never told tne not to go there. He reproached m<s that I did not make enough money by the "speculation." I remember going to Mr Lewis's with my biby, in February last; my husband came to fetch me home, but I refused to go with him. I went to Mr Lewis's because I knew there was someone in the house with him. When I would not go, my husband attempted to take the child, but I wonld not trust him. Since I have lived iu Hokitika Mr Lewis visited my place repeatedly; he never gave me any money. I told nothing to my husband about the death of my child. By Mr Harvey: I have tried to make an honest living by going out to work. After I went away from my I slept one night at Cribbens', one night at Newrick's, one night at Mr Lewis's, and for a fortnight I stayed at an abandoned place belonging to Mi Lewis; he never stayed there with me. Christopher Tonkins, sworn, said : T am a miner living at Stafford. I know that the two families Lewis and Stephens were very intimate, especially when Mrs Lewis was alive. I remember the night when Mrs Stephens came to the house; she was quite out of breaih; when she recovered she explained that, her husband had attempted to take her life. I was with Mr Lewis at that time. I slept at his house that night. I saw Mr Lewis take Mrs Stephens to Mr Cribbens' hotel; her husband came about half-an-hour later, and then the cause of the quarrel between the two came out. He (Mr Stephens) admitted that he got into a passion, and that lie brandished a pair of scissors with which he attempted to take her life. Cross-examined by Mr Park: I would not think that Mr Stephens is a ferocious man, who hardly was likely to commit any rash act, but I do not know what may have happened in the family circle. Mrs Stephens said that she would not like to be murdered " to oblige the world at large."

This concluded the case for the petitioner.

The Court adjourned at 6 p.m., and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Mr Park then stated the case for respondent. He contended that the evidence led on behalf of petitioner was not that expected by the counsel for petitioner. He would like to point out the difference in the evidence as given by Mr Lewis to-day and the evidence read by Dr. Giles of the case heard in 1882. It did not appear that petitioner used every endeavour to find his wife out after her release from imprisonment. He evidently followed her only for the purpose of getting hold of the money which she had in her posseesion. It must be manifest to the jury that petitioner had not taken proper and reasonable steps to satisfy himself of the death of respondent before marrying Annie Duncan. It is further contended on behalf of respondent that petitioner cohabited with her for 6ve days after her return to Stafford, which virtually means that he condoned her former wrong-doings. yL long discussion ensued between his onour and counsel with regard to the depositions, and the questions whiah are to be submitted to the jury wern amended in various ways.] It would be for the jury to say whether they believe that petitioner committed adultery with Mrs Stephens; and from the evidence led it would appear that the circumstances connected with her leaving her husband and staying at all hours at petitioner's place it is highly suggestive that they were guilty of improper conduct. If they should find that improper intercourse has taken place between the two parties, then petitioner would not be entitled to a decree. It throws a very grave suspicion on petitioner and Mrs Stephens that she apparently neglected her own house, in order to keep house for petitioner; and it is proved beyond ft doubt that after she left her husband she stayed for a fortnight at one of petitioner's houses, almost within a stone-throw. Further, it is highly suspicious that Mrs Stephens, after the death of her child at Hokitika, wrote to petitioner asking him to come to the funeral, and that subsequently he visited her repeatedly at Hokitika, apparently for immoral purposes. Mr Park then called

W. H. Stephens, who being sworn, said : I live at, Stafford. I know Mr Lewis well. I did not consent to my wife housekeeping for Mr Lewis. • I only gave my permission for one week, that was on the night when Mrs Lewis was buried. It was arranged that my wife ahould corno home about 5 p.m.;

but as she did not come, I wont for her, and we stayed together til! 10 p.m. This continued for several days. It wns agreed that she should go to MiLewis's house for the day, to do the work till Mr Lewis could find a suitable housekeeper. Instead of coming home at reasonable hours, she regularly remained out till late at night. She insisted on going to Mr Lewis's; she said he would go mad if I did not go. I told her I could not toleiaie it, as I had no comfort and that I had no time to mind the baby. She kept on going in spite of my remonstrances, saying that she would go whether I liked it or not. On one Sunday I asked her to stay at home but she would not, she w old go to church, and then to MiLewis's. I told lior that she must come home at respectable hours, else I would lock her out. On another day I was out with a neighbour, and when coming home I did not find her at home, I made, my own tea. She came home at a quarter-past 10 o'clock. She threw herself on the sofa. I offered her a cup of tea, but she would not accept it. She began to growl and grumble. She expressed herself in bad language, and irritated me greatly, saying "I waaa loafer." I replied that she should not make use of that word, as I would not allow it. She picked up the baby, and ran out on the verandah screaming, in order to make the neighbours believe that I was hammering her. She went away in n rage, and I found her at Mr Lewis's. I followed her, and when I came to the house I found my wife sitting with Mr Lewis and Mr Tonkins. When I entered the room, she sang out that I was coming to kick up a row. Mr L"wis said "He dare not do it." On another occasion I went into Mr Lewis's shop for some meat, when he came up and called me bad names. Before leaving for Hokitika we divided the furniture, but I told her distinctly that I would not contribute towards her support, as she had no right to desert me. I did not know anything of the death of the baby till I received the bill from Mr Jack. On various occasions during April I saw my wife repeatedly with Mr Lewis in bed. I heard accidentally that she had returned to Stafford to live with Mr Lewis. I believed her to be in Hokitika. When I came to the house, I could see through the blinds, when I saw the two together. It was about 9 p.m. On the 6th of May she disappeared. I distinctly swear that I heard my wife speaking to Mr Lewis in his room at 9 p.m. On the whole she was a good wife; she was a regular attendant at chinch, she was also a Sunday-school teacher. After Mrs Lewis's death she ceased going to chinch because she said that the minister was pleaching a sermon which she thought alluded to her and Mr Lewis.

doss-examined by Mr Lewis: I went repeatedly to Mr Lewis's bouse in April and May to make myself certain as to whether it was my wife staying at his house. I asked repeatedly to with me but they would tint do so. My wife never came home since the 21st of February. Durin« the lifetime of Mrs Lewis my wife very frequently visited hei. After her death I only gave her permission for one week to stay with Mr Lewis. I deny her st uement that I threatened her with a pair of scissors. I never cohabited with inv wife since Mrs Lewis's death ; my wife did not occupy the same bed with me. I refused to pay Mr Jack's charge of £7 10s. because I thought it exorbitant. I did not. offer anything in payment. I did not interfere when I saw my wife with Mr Lewis together in bed. I never get excited. Mr Lewis here asked his Honour's permission to call rebutting evidence to prove that Mrs Step-hens never went back to Stafford since the 2nd of M.irch.

His Honour granted Mr Lewis's application.

Mr Lewis then called

John Gray, who, being sworn, said : lam a butcher's assistant. I was at Stafford in March and April, in MiLewis's bouse. I occupied a room on the floor. There is a wall of one inch and a-half thickness between my room and Mr Lewis's bedroom. I have never seen Mrs Stephens, in April, at Mr Lewis's house. I suspected that there was a woman with Mr L"\vu: in the front parlour, but 1 could nor, tav whether it whs Mrs Stephens. From the voice I heaid, I concluded it was a woman. The dinner was brought out to me from the front, room. lam positive 1 have m-ver seen Mrs Sfcephes at Stafford since she left her husband.

Cross-examined by Mr Park: It was a matter <f common report at Stafford that Mrs Stephens w as w !ih Mr Law'.a during April. Mrs Stephens, re-called, sa.d. ; I never returned to Si afford since the 3rd of March. 1 wae nor (here in April. Mr Lewis was also re-called, and

s«id he perfectly recollected the day Mrs Stephens went away, and that he never had seen her since at Stafford.

Christopher Tomkins, recalled, said : I was in April at Mr Lewis's house; I did not see Mrs Stephens in his house. This concluded the ease. Mr Park then addressed the jury on behalf of respondent. Mr Harvey, on behalf of petitioner, followed.

His Honour, in summing up, said it is evident from the evidence that petitioner made proper inquiries after his wife after, her release from gaol. He remained single for nine years and then married again, which was perfectly legal. As regards the alleged adultery of petitioner with Mrs Stephens, it would be for the jury to say whether they believed petitioner's and Mrs Stephens' evidence, or that of Mr Stephens, who declares that he had witnessed the adultery, but who was unable to conduce any corroborative evidence. If they should not conclude that adultery was committed at Stafford they had no reason to believe that such took place during Mr Lewis's visits at Hokitika to Mrs Stephens, and vice versa.

The jury retired at 11 p.m., and returned at 11.45 p.m., with the following verdict: —" That petitioner did not desert respondent, at Townsvilla; that respondent did commit adultery with co-respondent; and that petitioner committed adultery with Mrs Stephens, at Stafford.

His Honour discharged the jory, and. in answer to Mr Harvey, said that a motion may be made after the other cases are disposed of.