SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1050, 30 May 1912, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

PALMERSTON NORTH SESSION. At the Supreme Court, before his Honour Mr Justice Chapman, John Duncan was charged that on May 2nd, at Hunterville, he did indecently assault a girl under xo years of age. Accused, who was not represented by counsel, plead not guilty. The case was heard with closed doors. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and sentence was deferred. Douglas Robert Saxon Munro and Edmund Nelson Baigent, of Longburn, were charged that they did conspire to defraud Scott and Martindale of ,£3O. ** Frederick Perrin, an official from the Wellingtton office, who gave evidence as to having received authority to produce the telegram- sent by Baigent. The time on the telegram showed that it was handed in for transmission at 11.49 a.m. and finished at Longburn at 12.55. The telegram that had been sent contained the name of Robert Douglas, but Munro when interviewed by witness admitted that the signature was his, and that it should have been Douglas Robert Saxon Munro. Munro said that he had heard that Lady Moutoa was a good bet, and he had got Baigent to send the telegram for him, but he did not know the actual contents of the telegram. Witness asked him to make a statement, which he did in writing, Baigent doing likewise. The two accused were placed at opposite ends of a table, each making a statement there. Munro made two statements, the-first of which was destroyed. When Baigent handed his statement in witness took it, and without reading it told accused he should make his statement very clear as to his exact position in the matter. Baigent then asked if he could add some more to it, and witness handed him back the statement. Accused wrote another statement, and witness, alter reading it througfi, aa»d tma if there was no blame attachable to the Palmerston North office he would like him to say so, and that he had made the statement without threat of punishment. By Mr Cooper; Witness had been called in some time after the telegrams had been sent. He had been introduced to Munro as an inspector of the general post office at Wellington. He had used the words to the effect that if accused did not speak out he (witness) would have to take other steps. He had not refused Muuro's first statement; he accepted it, but subsequently returnee it to him in place ot another. While Munro was making his statement witness sent tor Baigent and asked him to make a statement too, placing at the end ot the table where the two accused were writing against each other. Witness was under the impression at first that the fault lay at Palmerston North, and he started his inquiry there. At the time when he was getting the statement he had a Palmerston clerk under detention at his room. Baigent had been reported on as a smart officer. Further evidence was given by postal officials. Henry Martindale, member ol the firm of Scott and Martindale, asked if his firm had received the telegram in question, declined to answer on the grounds that his answer might incriminate himself.

The jury, after retiring for half-an-faour, returned a verdict of not guilty, and both accused were discharged.

PETITIONS IN DIVORCE. Undefended petitions in divorce were taken at the Supreme Court before His Honour, Mr Justice Chapman yesterday. MAX V. MAX. Francesca Martha Max sued for a divorce from John Max on the ground of desertion. Petitioner gave evidence to the effect that she was married in September, 1901. She had one child. They lived for a time in Taihape, and in March, 1906, she came to Palmerston North for a holiday, at the request 01 her husband. Her married life had not been a happy one up till then. She did not return to Taihape, as her husband came to Palmerston and said he had sold the home. She had on a number of occasions asked him to make another home, but he had not done so. She had not lived with him since March, 1906. She had maintained herselt during that time by doing washing. , . Evidence was also given by petitioner’s mother. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. XSXIRXA V. ISXIKKA. Clara Iskirka sued for a divorce trom John iskirka, on the ground of desertion and drunkenness. She was married at Foxton, she stated, in November, 1876, and had nine children. Her husband left her in April 1906. He frequently got drunk. Frank Iskirka, son of petitioner, also gave evidence as to his father’s continual absence from home. Owing to the fact of the ages of the children not being forthcoming, his Honour stated he could not grant a decree as the case stood. Eeave would be given to amend the petition, however, and a decree nisi would be granted when affidavits were filed sei.iug forth the ages of the children. NATION V. NATION. Isabella Grace Nation (Mr

Cooper) petitioned for a divorce against Charles Cecil Nation on the grounds of adultery. Petitioner stated she had been married in the year 1902. Recently she had discovered that her husband had committed adultery. He left her in March last. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. cartridge v. cartridge. Elizabeth Ann Partridge petitioned tor a divorce from George Arthur Partridge on the grounds of habitual cruelty and drunkenness. In evidence she stated that she had been married in Wellington in the year 1904. She was a widow, and was living in Palmerston at the time. There were three children of the marriage. Her husband had no home to take her to, but petitioner had a home of her own. In 1906 her husband commenced to drink excessively, and continued to do so up till July of last year, when he had left her. In five years she had only received ,£3O from him for maintenance. In addition to being drunk he had also been guilty of cruelty. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the lower scale, petitioner to have custody of the children. O’SULLIVAN V. O’SULLIVAN. Timothy O’Sullivan sued for a divorce from Sarah Jane O’Sullivan on the ground of adultery. He stated in evidence that he was married to respondent in June 1910. About twelve months ago his wife left him. There was one child. Constable Howie, of Ongarue, gave evidence as to having served the divorce papers on petitioner’s wife, who was living in a cottage with a man under the name of Mrs O’DonnellA degree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, with costs against co-respondent, petitioner to have custody of the child. BAIGENT V. BAIGENT. Johanna Friedreika Baigent petitioned lor a divorce from Andrew Baigent on the grounds ol desertion. Petitioner stated that she lived at Longburn. She was married in February, 1885, and had six children alive. Her husband left her about fifteen years ago, and had not supported her since. Harold Baigent, son of petitioner, stated that his father had not been home since he left. Prior to that he was given to drink, A decree nisi was granted, subject to the filing of affidavits as to the ages of the ‘children. THOMPSON V. THOMPSON. Bertha Liviuia Thompson petitioned for a divorce from George Albert Thompson on the ground ol adultery. She was married, she stated iu February, 1911. Her husband failed to get a house to take her to and she had not lived with him. C. J. Hewlett, Deputy Registrar oi the Supreme Court, gave evidence as to the previous case iu which respondent had figured, and in which a divorce had been granted. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. Pickering v, Pickering. Sarah Ann Pickering petitioned for a divorce from Matthew Edward Pickering on the ground of desertion.

In evidence she stated that she was married in 1873. There were seven children, and her husband, who was addicted to drink, had left her in 1888. Further evidence was given, and a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months.