MRS. AUSTIN DISBELIEVED BY JURY

NZ Truth, Issue 1213, 28 February 1929, Page 3

MRS. AUSTIN DISBELIEVED BY JURY

Did Her Utmost To Blacken Rene's Fair Name, But Had No Scruples When Seeking Her Help In Defence of Her Own "JOHN WILLIE THE MUG^IVEN DIVORCE DECREE

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Christchurch Representative) ■ ..I —^ It was ever woman's prerogative to change her mind and vary her opinions like the changing of the wind, and m exercise of this time-worn privilege, she has frequently exposed those freakish feminine twists which the masculine mind, fails to comprehend. ■ * " In Cecelia Matipo Austin, of Wellington, and her daughter^ Rene Hamilton, the feminine realm has two whose varying spasms of hatred of, and love for, each other form one of the intriguing studies of human nature. Allegedly on the information the daughter supplied to her father's solicitor regarding her mother's conduct, a divorce petition was drawn and successfully pleaded.

YET, slandered viciously by Her mother, and her honor impugned m the eyes of her nearest and dearest relatives, Rene Hamilton went into the box to substantiate her mother's defence to the allegations contained m her husband's petition. During the hearing at Christchurch before Mr. Justice Adams and a jury, of the petition of John William Austin, laborer, of Christchurch, for a divorce from Jiis wife, and citing- Benjamin Hobbs, laborer, of Gisborne, and recently of Wellington, as co-respond-ent, Mi*. C. S. Thomas, counsel for the petitioner, m order to test the credibility of the respondent's witnesses, produced some amazing documents written by Mrs. Austin m which she slandered her daughter with the vilest assertions against her character and her honor. The case was remarkable for the sordid story which was torn from Mrs. Austin and her daughter by counsel for the husband, and also for the vehement attack made by Mr. Thomas upon the tactics adopted by Mr. A. B. Sievwright, of Wellington, who, with Mr. J. K. Moloney, of Christchurch, opposed the petition on behalf of the wife.' The petitioner alleged infidelity on the part of the wife, from v whom he had been separated, but the allegations were denied. No answer was filed by the corespondent, and this also formed, a topic for heated and acrimonious debate between counsel before the jury finally decided that Austin was entitled to the freedom 6 which he sought. Austin stated that there were four children of the marriage, which took place m 1905.

Counsel Warned

Mr. Sievwright had not proceeded very far Avith his cross-examination Avhen he Avas interrupted by the judge, Avho reminded counsel to confine his remarks and questions to relevant matters, and not to introduce anything extraneous Avhich Avould influence the jury or prejudice the Avitnesses. Austin denied ever having gone to his Avife m a threatening manner folloAving separation and maintenance proceedings m Wellington m August, 1926. Mr. SievAvright: And your wife alleged failure to maintain, persistent cruelty and habitual drunkenness? The Judge: I cannot alloAV you to proceed on those lines, Mr. SievAvright. You should have pleaded that m your ansAver. You are setting up a case of condonation. Further comments on this line by counsel Avere x-ebuffed by the judge, who reminded him that he was AA'asting the time of the court and the jury. A suggestion by counsel that Austin had. made allegations of impropriety with his wife against other men was denied, by ' the petitioner. Mr. SievAvright: Have you not accused GallOAvay, who Avas the chef at the "Rendezvous," m Wellington, AVhere your wife Avas working? Austin: I have not. Will you deny that you have accused your wife of. misconduct Avith a man named Mills, Avho Avas a taxidriver for the Rink Company, and with a man named Mallock? — I will.' Austin made a further denial to a statement that he had made overtures to Hobbs to make a confession of misconduct with Mrs. Austin. Mr. SievAvright: What sum of money did you pay Mason? Mr. Thomas: That, sir, is a grossly improper question. Mason is a' witness.

A Few Questions

For this remark Mr. Sievwright was further rebuked by the judge, who informed him ' that counsel haid no license to insult or annoy, and had no right to pour out slander m the hope | that some prejudice would be produced to influence the jury. Mr. Sievwright: Is not the real reason for this petition that you want to escape maintenance payments to your wife? The Judge: That is most improper, Mr. Sievwright. Petitioner comes here charging his wife with misconduct which charge you have to answer. You are saying m another form that the petitioner is perjuring himself. It is the duty of the court to protect witnesses from such conduct as you are now indulging m. Austin stated that he had spoken to his daughter, Rene,' now Mrs. Hamilton, about giving- evidence on his behalf, and shortly afterwards she had left Christchurch, though she had agreed to give evidence. Testimony as to the actual offence alleged m the petition was given by Violet May Smith, a young married woman, who occupied- a room at 12 Alma Lane, Wellington. She remembered one Sunday morning, early m 1926, when she went to Mrs: Austin's bedroom to call her. There she found the co-respondent, Hobbs, and Mrs. Austin. Hobbs, the witness testified, was attired m only a flimsy garment, and, shortly after Galloway left, Hobbs chased after him and there was some trouble along the street when he overtook him. These were not unique incidents, .a* for five or six weeks, while Mrs. Smith was m the house, Mrs. Smith said she saw Hobbs and Mrs. Austin frequently occupying the same room. Mrs. Smith told counsel when crossexamined that she left home at 8

o'clock m th,e evening for the wedding-, and returned about 11.30 p.m. At that time Mrs. Austin was not sleeping on the couch m the kitchen, and never did she remember Mrs. Austin, her son Albert, her daughter Rene, and Rene's baby occupying one bed m one of the front rooms. She left the ■ house on April 12, and Hobbs then was still a boarder. Mrs. Smith said she was sure it was m the evening when Galloway called, because she was working at Cathies, m Marion Street, at the time and

would have been wbr noon. Evidence supporting that of his wife m relation to the Incident on the night of the wedding was given by Coleman Percy Smith, a storeman m the employ of Burns Philp, atWellington. Mr. Sievwright: You are sure it waa not three o'clock m the afternoon w li c n Galloway called, and that what you know is merely hearsay? — Absolutely. Smith added that Galloway entered Mrs. Austin's bedro o m ay i'thout knocking, and when he found Hobba Avlth the woman there Avere some words. Mr. SievAvright: Would it surprise you 'to know there is no door betAveen Mrs. Austin's bed-

room and the kitchen? — It must have been taken down after I left. Do you know there never was a door, but only a curtain there? — There Avas always a door there. Mrs. Smith was recalled to corroborate her husband's last statement. Complaints about his mother's' conduct "with men who came about the house were made by Leonard Walter Austin, a sea cook, aged 20. He also was present, he said, on the evening of March 31, 1926, when Galloway called, and found his mother and Hobbs m a compromising situation. A few minutes -after Galloway left, said the son, Hobbs jumped out of bed and chased Galloway

up Tory Street, and when he caught up to him he "put the boot m." Counsel: You mean, I suppose, that Hobbs kicked him? — Witness: He did. Before he went to sea m July, 1926, Austin said he was out of work for two months, and he frequently saw Hobbs and his mother occupying the same room. Mr. Sievwright: Did you tell your mother that Hobbs was your best friend at that time? — No. On the evidence produced by these witnesses, Austin relied to secure his divorce, and counsel closed his case. The wife's answer was an unqualified denial to the allegations set up

by her husband. Her counsel drew the attention of the jury to the •fact that her reason for defending the petition was purely the defence of a woman's honor. She had gone to Wellington, and as a means of additional revenue had kept a few boarders, and Hobbs happened to' be one of them. She stated from the box that recently she had been working m Carterton, as she had been advised, after her health broke down, to go to the country.

She regarded the allegations of her husband as a heinous attack on her honor, and submitted a strenuous denial that anything improper had ever occurred between herself and Hobbs. Throughout her residence m Alma Lane, either her young son, Albert, or her daughter, Rene, and her baby, had shared a room with her. ■ There was never any door between the kitchen and the back bedroom, which was screened by a curtain. She declared that during the time Rene was m the nursing home, Albert slept with her until Hobbs came to stay at the place, and when Rene came out of the home, she and her baby occupied the room with Mrs, Austin and Albert: She denied that there was ever anything m the nature of an incident which would lead her hus-.

band's witnesses to believe that there was any impropriety. N She , declared that the occasion of Galloway's visit was one day m April, shortly before Easter. , She had never seen Galloway to speak to since she left the "Rendezvous" m April, 1926, but she saw him once coming out of the De Luxe restuarant, where he was now working". Mr. Thomas:. We will have that on the " notes, sir. "Where he" is now working-." She evidently knows where he is.

ok up his cross-ex-amination .at this stage, and commented upon the fact that Mrs. Austin had made no attempt to get Hobbs to leave the house after the accusation was made against her. "I had to make a living," she replied. Even at the sacrifice of your honor? — Yes. She added that, at the time, it would have been difficult to have secured another boarder i n Hobbs's place, as her husband, she alleged, was slandering her m Wellington. Without referring to the unfortunate February incident m your daughter's life, do> you put her forward 'as a witness of truth to substantiate your defence? — I don't

know what you are referring to. She came on my side. Have you always taken the same view of her?- I—No,1 — No, but since her marriage she has been a good girl, and she has found out whose side she is on. Do you know that this petition was drawn on information she supplied to my office? — Was she bought? Mr. Thomas: I don't know. Mr. Thomas (reading from 'a bundle of letters): Listen to — this: — "Your sister is a good girl She makes the excuse that she is going for fish and chips and she clears up to the back of the police station with fellows."

There was also an allegation that her daughter was suffering from a disease. Counsel read on to a passage m which Mrs. Austin suggested to her son, Len., to whom the letter was written, that he had better send Rene some money to keep up the rent and that she, Rene, could then run a house of ill -repute. The letter also stated that, late at night, Rene had got up to let men into the house, and concluded that Len. would be able to write to her under • the fancy name of "Dot Stewart," as she was .going into another house of shady repute, and "she can stay there before I'll pull her out." When Mr. Thomas asked Mrs. Austin whether these statements m her letter were true she answered that

they must be, as her husband had told her all about the daughter's conduct. Counsel: Where does Dot Stewart live? Mrs. Austin: That is the name she lived under. Mrs. Austin, do you suggest that these are the statements of the father and Vsm brother or of you to the father and the brother? — Well, they told me all about Aer goings on. And you are the woman who would let your daughter — your witness m this action — stay m a house of

ill-repute before you would • pull her out? — Yes, while she was un- - der the influence of her father. She ■ received groceries and furniture to go • to court and tell lies against me. Mr. Thomas, referring to another - letter:, What is this reference to there ' being something wrong with Hamill ton, your son-in-law? — I mean, just the same as my husband. He told me about it. What is this story about a man called Mandell? — My husband sent him along to my house with • • £2 and tried to frame up some- ; thing on me, and he wanted Rene i to say m the maintenance, court s that Mandeli came to see me and not Rene. Mr. Thomas quoted further from a letter written by Mrs. Austin to heF husband, whom she addressed as "John Willie the Mug," m which she declared that she was going to warn the publio against Rene Hamilton and

her husband as they were dangerous. That would be about this girl who : Is to give 1 evidence for you to-day? — Yes. What about this letter you wrote , from Carterton to Rene while she was in' Christchurch?" Listen' to this: "Rene, get all you can from your dirty bounder of a father, as you know he really led you to believe he wanted you m Christchurch. Borrow a couple of quid from Len. and skip up here. Get. all you can from Len. for the time he tried to get Miss Gibson to put you m Point Halswell. Tell him the money is for your teeth and skip up here." Did you write that? — rTes, because she was having- a dog's life m Christchurch. % Rene Hamilton, a youthful looking woman, wife of Henry Hamilton, laborer, of Wellington, told the court that, during the time she was living m the house, her mother never at any" time misconducted herself, or ever encouraged familiarity with Hobbs. She denied ever^ seeing Galloway at the house, and declared that she never admitted him oh the night of March 31. While living m Christchurch, she was approached by her father, who sought her assistance m his divorce petition, and she went to Mr. Thomas's office. Mr. Sievwright: Did you tell Mr. Tracy ' anything?— Only that Hobbs was living m the house, and that I had seen nothing improper going on. Mr. Thomas: Who is this Dot Stewart? — That was my name when I ran away from home and didn't want to be, found. ■ „ ) You don't remember Galloway com-

Daughter's Story

ing to the house? Now your mother says you let him m. Who is truthful? • — My mother, J suppose. I remember now that Galldway did come. And you say that ydu remember the door of .the bedroom being removed, and your mother says it was removed before you got there. Who is truthful? Mr. Sievwright endeavored to lodge another objection, and was sternly commanded by the judge to sit down. Mr. Thomas: This petition was drawn on what you told Mr. Tracy m my office. Tou told him Hobbs and your mother were living together. — No, I told 'him Hobbs was only a boarder. You heard your brother tell Mr. Tracy he had seen your mother and Hobbs m the same room? — Yes, but it was untrue. And you let us go on. with the petition without telling us it was all lies?— Yes. Are you living with your husband now? — Yes. And do you remember hearing your husband make unsavoury statements to your mother about her character? — Yes. Why did you lie m your letters — Because it suited me to. And does it suit you to lie, to-day to try and s get your mother out of this mess?— No. . Albert Austin, aged fifteen, a newsboy, residing with his mother m Wellington, could not remember ever being out of his mother's bed at night while they had lived m Wellington. He never saw any familiarity between Hobbs and his mother. Hobbs was only a boarder. Mr. Thomas: He needs no coaching. He has been well schooled up. Mr. Sievwright: It's nothing like the trumped-up story of the three witnesses for - the . .

Sweeping Tirade

I — : : I The boy stated that he had never seen Galloway at the house, but when his mother's evidence was read, stating- that he was present, he admitted that his mother's memory, would be better than his. When he addressed the jury, Mr. Sievwright referred to the faot that Hobbs, who was m Gisborne, had no interest m Mrs. Austin's attempt to defend her honor, and he had nothing to lose, which probably accounted for his absence. A sweeping- tirade on the methods ' adopted by Mr. Sievwright punctua ted the opening of Mr. Thomas's ad- [ dress. '. The statement had been made, he said, that Austin was merely endeavoring: to evade the payment of maintenance. . The sum of £40 -was the usual ; amount of costs asked for when big [ ! people were concerned m such divorce petitions, but counsel for Mrs. Austin , had asked for -the extra large amount | of £75 owing to the difficulty of bringing witnesses from the North , Island. This sum had been lodged by Austin, thereby enabling his wife to bring both Galloway and Hobbs, if she so desired, to clear her name. Following counsel's address, his honor summed up briefly, and conmented on the fact that the letters , quoted by Mr. Thomas questioned the credibility of the people who wrote them,, while "the credibility of the independent witnesses for the petitioner had not been questioned. A retirement of half an hour was , sufficient for the jury to find that misconduct had been committed by the parties, and a decree nisi was granted, costs being made against the co-re- . spondent.