NO MORE FRUITLESS DREAMS OF LIFE?

NZ Truth, Issue 1191, 27 September 1928, Page 8

NO MORE FRUITLESS DREAMS OF LIFE?

Elderly Theosophist Asserts That Magistrate's Astral Body Usurped Judge's Role SURRENDERED FLESHPOfs~TO FOLLOW BUDDHISM

§§ ' (From "N.Z. truth's" Special Representative.) 1 SUCH ARE THE CIRCLES made by the stones of thought that when the teachings of Annie Besant touched the mind jj of a well-known tourist motor-service owner, of Hotorua % the whole trend of his life became changed. Time was when Ernest I Edward Williams, now probably a man m the late fifties, was the proprietor — or the controlling force— of a prosperous fleet | of seroice-cars which carried sight-seeing tourists around the wonders of the thermal regions. In those days he concentrated I on his. business and it is reasonable to assume that nothing gave him greater interest than the matter of the credit side of his annual | balance'sheet I But what a difference to-day! Only last week, with a smile on his aesthetic face and an expression such as might be seen I upon the countenance of a seer, Williams toQ "N.Z. Truth's" representative that he had been compelled to raise a few shillings i oh his suitcase and its contents, which he had brought with him when he came to Hamilton from Rotorua. JiipiiiiiiiiiiiiM^^

This remarkably unique statement of defence ran as follows: "1 allege that the separation arid maintenance were the result of a biased judgment and a conspiracy against my- religion and myself, which was fostered by the Free Masonic Organization. "I am a Liberal Catholic by faith, and I study the teachings of Theosophy. My moral status . was quite reasonable until it became known that I proposed to establish my religion on the property now m dispute. "Since then every endeavor has been made to force me to give up my religious practices and to frustrate my purpose. The present dispute commenced after one of the brotherhood had taken my wife for a joy-r}de m a motor-car destined for Hamilton. "Upon her return, needless to say, the anticipated quarrel ensued. My wife rushed off down to a solicitor/ another member of the brotherhood, and I was served with a summons to appear on September 22, 1926, m dQfence, m less than twenty-four hours. "My own solicitor, another member of the brotherhood, was put of town . . . and I was forced to appear

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiw

Theosophy' (and added mentally) 'He! He! I have got you this time!' , ''Now, sir, I wish to make a statement as follows: That the magistrate, William George Kiffln Keneriok, and the judge of the Supreme Court were one and the same person. The mystio feat waa performed by what is known as , 'obsession.' "I applied to the Supreme Court for a re-hearing of my case, and, by permission—or by strength of "wiU*—the local magistrate, m his astral body only, forced the judga out of his usual abode and then took possession of the judge's body during the hearing of ray case. "After he had given his decision and nrade his further demand, and thrown his taunt at me: 'H*! He! etc./ he retired rather hastily, and the rightful owner was then able to rehabilitate his own body after the trial was over. ''What happened after that I do not know. I was so disgusted with the affair that I left the rest of the case to. my solicitor and left the court also, I waited outside for him. "After the separation was granted m the lower court and prior to the hear-

IllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllUlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli

of York, but the prison officials refused to allow my petition to go forward. It is probably still lying m Wellington.

"During this imprisonment my wife's counsel prosecuted the' application of the receiving order. The charging order had been made—my wife's only — immediately after the separation was granted. ."The furniture was also allotted and my wife's share was removed, thereby desolating my home. My personal effects remained m the house, but upon my return I was destitute and compelled to sleep on the floor m the pffiee for a number of weeks. "My home was let to a tenant, but upon his' leaving my key was returned, to me by the Public' Trustee's local lagent. Almost immediately after that, I was served with another summons for my wife's maintenance at £4 per week, on May 24, 1927. "The magistrate then demanded that I should give up ray home. Three times he made this demand. I declined to give w^.y. lie then sentenced me to four months' imprisonment. "I appealed to the House of Representatives through our local member against this treatment. I was released after serving two months' hard labor, thus frustrating my appeal. "Prior to this case, peirig unable to pay my wife's arrears and maintenance at £4, and my children's maintenance at £2, I applied to the court to have my ohildren, who are m reality destitute, placed as a first charge upon the moneys handled by the Public Trustee. The children "were placed a charge upon the Public Trustee's account on April 13, i9s7. N , "I wrote to the Public Trustee on divers occasions informing him of the Appealed To King position and firmly instructing him tq, give my children preferential treatment, as they were minors and unable to; care for themselves, as his records' should show. I also informed him that I had declined to pay my wife's maintenance. ' ■.'". "On October 17, 1927, I was summoned for being in ' arrears with my children's maintenance to the tune of £66 3s. 6d. "As stated at the hearing, my children's maintenance (£2 a week) hMi m many cases, been paid by myself personally, into the local court; on other occasions I sent a boy tlown with the money and he brought back a receipt. "This continued regularly up to the time the receiving orders were made on April 13, 1927. After tha,t date, and February 21, 1927—from which date .the Public. Trustee* demanded rent-HC, or my appointee on behalf of the company, which occupied the premises ad-r joining the house, paid the rent free 'of all deductions to the Public Trustee's agent at Ho.torua; "Upon examining the court records of amounts paid into court and amounts paid to the Public Trustee, he found, and stated, that my children's, maintenance was .£6 m credit (overpaid).

"A few words followed m reference} to my wife's maintenance, tb,en the' N .magistrate again demanded: 'Will you give up your home?' I again declined • . . and immediately he fol« lowed with: 'The.n % sentence you to six months' imprisonment.' I

"I was bo astounded with this treatment that I reeled and almost fell from the witness*box. Upon recover' ing myself, I said to him (mentally) : 'You have sentenced me twice for the same offence.' He replied (mentally) : 'I don't care.'

"I then (mentally) asked to appeal to the King. No reply was forthcoming. I stood for a while m the witnessbox, then the clerk of t\\6 court said: 'That will do, get down!' "The magistrate would not allow me to leave the court. He looked around, but there were no police In the court. I believe he would have had me arrested and Imprisoned immediately. After a while, /someone obtained permission for /me to fix up my affairs before setf ving the sentence. "In due course I appealed to His Majesty the King against this Dreams To Facts magistrate's abusive treatment. My appeal was this -time intercepted and replied to by His Majesty's advisers, but nevertheless my appeal has been laid before His Majesty the King . . . and I await His Majesty's pleasure." Such was the defence filed by Williams m person. Judge Blair, having scanned Williams 1 -lengthy defence, spoke kindly to ihe mystic who stood before him. It was impossible, he said, to review the decisions already made some time ago. The defence did not touch the matters m issue and his honor thought it was through ignorance— rather than from any other cause — that he had failed to comply with the rulings of the court. His honor expressed himself as being impressed with Williams' desire to provide for his children • and the thought that perhaps the Public, Trustee would allow an order for the maintenance of the children to take precedence over that of the wife. Williams' statement of defence was finally struck out on Mr. Justice Blair's instruction, following the application of Lawyer J. "F. Strang, who acted for the Public Trustee. The lawyer indicated that the defence was an abuse of the process of the court and disclosed no defence. Costs and- .disbursements '.were allowed against Williams to the amount of £2 2s.

HE was there to file his defence to a sumpions issued by the Public Trustee to recover possession of a property at Rotorua, which Williams insisted he was entitled to retain. This property had been the, subject of an order by the Rotorua, Magistrate's Court and the maintenance of his wife a.rjd two children had been charged against it. After the "brief proceedings before Judge Blair " on Thursday, Williams walked out into the sunshine of a glorious spring day— practically penniless. it was impossible not to be struck with the look of spiritual detachment which pervaded the man as he stood alone, gasing up the street. The cot}-' trost was all the more striking m that Hamilton's main thoroughfare was more than usually thronged with eager folk awaiting the arrival of the heroic birdmen. ' In Williams'. c War, but dreamy, grey eyes, there was a far-away look of bewilderment, while his delicate hands stroked his short grey beard aa he gazed into space, as though asking of Fate: "What next?" Draped as one of those figures which so often illustrate Bible stories, rather than m the mundane garments of an ultra-oivilized age, he might have stepped— so far as appearances went— from the Book itself. Standing there, he was a living contradiction to the materialistic conception of pur accepted creeds. The story of the change which has come over Williams goes back several years to the time when first he let his mind run to thoughts of Theosophy. Williams Motors, Ltd., Rotorua, was then a thriving concern, but as the

Swayed By Creed

influence of the creed he had adopted gained sway with the proprietor, it failed to bring increased happiness into his domestic life.

. After thirteen years of married association, it may be assumed that it did pot meet with sympathetic understanding from his wife, Grace Olive. Things reached such a pitclv that about four years ago Mrs. Williams took procedin^s m the Magistrate's Court at Rotorua for separation and maintenance on the customary grounds of persistent qruelty. The allegations, which resulted m an order being nm^e against Williams, were that; he was neglecting his business, his wife having had to take over the reins for her children's sake. The cruelty, she then said, had taken the form of striking her on the mouth; further, Williams had. made a Junge at her on one occasion with a. carvingknife.

At other times he had thrashed his eldest boy unniercjfujly with a wet towel on the legs and— when he found him climbing on to hip •mother's bedhe had picked him up and thrown him over the other aide of the bed, smashing all the tea things on the tray. After an absence of five weeks on another occasion, ho had written to her a? follows: ."I have had quite a good holiday; the friends I have made down here are, of qoursei weU versed m the inner knowledge; on.o cannot help but benefit by being m tb,elf companyeven if no physical words are spoken, o.ur intuitive faculties are quickened." At the same time, her husband gave a very clear indication of what was to come by announcing that he nev«r wished to take an active part in 1 business again, while, referring to marital relations/ he sajd that it would be better for everyone if they indulged a little less' m "unnecessary habits.'? The deeper Williams' detachment became, the more he seems to have withdrawn into himself. It was said that he had hardly spoken to his family for eighteen months. Mrs. Williams* had alleged, moreover, that when he "got into fits of rage," he completely lost control of himself— his jaws worked and he could not speak. She became afraid of him and had locked her 'goor-'at night, while her AtoaitingAUssiah husband— becoming 1 more and more absorbed m his Theqsophical studies— r had stayed m bed Until midday, then gone out fox* walks of two hours, or so, only to resume his studies on arrival home, '■'.' Pleaded with to return to the happy; normal life, it wag paid that he had urged' his Wife and children to take up the study pf Theosophy for their own benefit; .'otherwise' he would refuse to have anything to do with them.' 1 Williams had also believed m the coming of the Hindoo "Messiah," Krishriamurti, m April,' 1926. * Their maid, Constance Finn, had a dog, which lived at Williams' hquse. The follower of Annie Besant' would seem to .have taken a strong fancy to this animal; it sttayed m the sittingroom with him and he objected to it being disturbed, saying that if it were annoyed it might individualize into a human being. If his; children came m, they would be warned to be quiet, as there were fairies present and they did not like, a noise. ■ , ; Williams' reply to the allegation of .cruelty was a general denial. He attributed ' his {Its of annoyance' to his wife's continuous "nagging" over his religious studies and beliefs. > Whatever the pros and cons of th« original breach might have been, Williams' .absorption of Tbeosophy was> the beginning of the end of unity, m the household.. , .. His motor business, being 'neglected, " and his wife hot. being able to carry on the affairs of the firm, things went from bad to worse, until-r-after repeated coux't cases— the Public Trustee, acting on the wife and children's behalf, last week obtained an order from the court to hold the property m trust for them. Williams came up from Rotoirua to attenjd the court and. put forward his defence, ■

with my solicitor's clerk and ask for an adjournment. "My wife's solicitor took an unfair advantage of this and made a false statement to the magistrate, another member of the brotherhood, which so aroused him that he then threatened to put me m gaol if it were true. . . . The adjournment was granted* I "Upon my solicitor's return, he informed me that he was unable to defend my cage, as he had promised my wife not to interfere. I was ultimately obliged to engage a minor solicitor ( who' .has since left the town. "During the hearing on September. 29, 1926, my religion was attacked by people who hud no—or very little — - knowledge of it, My wife's and her maid's evidence was grossly exaggej>' : ated. and some of it untrue. "The magistrate's record of the evidence is incorrect and incomplete; his own statement is not recorded, namely: 'You must give up your religion' (and added mentally) 'if you want your wife back. 1 "I appealed on November 23, 1926, to the Hamilton Supreme Court, against this demand and the separation. Throughout the proceedings the judge was against me and a considerable amount of evidence, was given, against my Theosophical knowledge and associations, with the result that not only was the separation upheld, but the. judge further demanded that 'you must give up your studies of

ing of the Supreme Court appeal, I had already been summoned on two occasions, i "On the first occasion, November 1, 1926, I informed the court that I was a Liberal Catholic and that I objected to my case being heard further by a Freemason. My objection was ignored and I was ordered to pay or suffer seven days' imprisonment. I paid the money demanded, "On the second occasion, November 17, 1926; I was convicted and sentenced to seven days m Rotorua prison unless I would' sooner pay the £4. * I had no money to pay, so had to serve the seven days. .. . "The Supreme Court considered that the maintenance was high.! but referred it back to the lower court for adjustment. My solicitor questioned the procedure, but the judge was firm, adding, as an explanation, that: T (the judge) •will have to keep coming .to this court' (Supreme) 'every time a variation is wanted. 1 "Since this Supreme Court decision. I have been continually harassed and victimised unmercifully. On February 4,1 927, I was sentenced to two months' imprisonment m Mount Eden prison for failing to maintain my wife at £4 per week, . although he had stated m the Supreme Court that the maintenance was high. "I appealed against this sentence to "His Royal Highness the Puke