Decision Reserved.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 90, 16 December 1913, Page 5

Decision Reserved.

J. W. HARDING CASE.

A MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT. U The case in which the’ Official Assignee proceeded against John White Harding, stock dealer, late of Hawera, bankrupt, for an order setting aside the settlement of certain properties by the defendant on his wife, was continued in the Supreme Court, before his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) at Wellington on Saturdav.

The only witness called for the plaintiff on Saturday was Charles Alfred Budge, Deputy Official Assignee, Hawera. He said that he had repeatedly applied to Harding for his papers, but he had never got them.

SIR JOHN FINDLAY’S ADDRESS.

Sir John Findlay then quoted an authority to the effect that a settlement made before and in consideration of marriage was protected, but where there was evidence of intent by both parties to defeat the creditors, and the marriage was part of a scheme to that end, the settlement would he void; but not void if the wife was innocent of the intention. His Honor; Of course, the root of the case is fraud in both. Sir John Findlay: I submit that the wife sought protection for herself in the disastrous situation into which Harding has brought her. She was a young girl, living with highlyrespectable parents, and contributing towards her support by shorthand work and typing. It had not been suggested that before her meeting with Harding there had been any blemish on her character. Her brother and Harding stayed at Brent’s, in Rotorua, together, and the brother afterwards introduced Harding to her. Harding’s early efforts as a suitor had failed. He had wished to marry her, and she was determined not to accept him. Then came the unhappy incident at Hamilton.

HISTORY OF THE HARDINGS. . “I am not here to defend Harding,” continued Sir John Findlay, “I am as free to condemn him as my learned friend is. I consider that Harding acted the part of a blackguard, and I consider that his object in getting her to leave the train at Hamilton was to seduce her, and after having seduced her to force her into marriage.” After the incident. at Hamilton the plunge was taken. She had thrown away a . woman’s dearest jewel—her chastity. From then on the path grew easier; the first false step made easier the way for others. The path became easier as the grade grew steeper, and so the once-inno-cent, the “green” young girl, went on-until the Nemesis. The question of—.inaccmge-then“assumed a differerrfr

aspect. In Brisbane she found from an old New Plymouth newspaper that Harding had been a callous brute to his first wife-Hiad broken her nose—and that he had children and property, Thus situated she might have done better to have faced her trouble by going her way alone. She decided, however, on the course of getting a settlement for her protection. and for that of her child which was to be horn. Harding at first refused to give a settlement. They went to Hawera together, and there this woman he had ruined found that the position was even worse, inasmuch as in addition to Harding’s two legitimate children he had one other child. She then put her request to him point blank—either they would be married and a settlement made, or she would go home and face disgrace. They went to Wanganui and were married. And the case against her must fail if it could he shown that she merely insisted upon a settlement for the pro-* tection of herself and her child.

MRS HARDING IN THE BOX. iolet S. Harding was then called. She gave her age as 2o years, and said that when she first met Harding in Auckland ylHlO), she was 22, and was employed by Mr L. J. Bagnall, who was Mayor of Auckland at the time. Her work was typing and shorthand writing, and she knew no-i thing of book-keeping. She met Haxdiug through his bringing a letter of introduction from her brother, and she went to dinner with him at the Star Hotel. On that occasion he asked her to marry him, saying that she would be better off than working for her living and that he was unhappy. A couple of months later he returned to 'Auckland, and (she thought) made further proposals of marriage, which she did not accede to. She did not at that time know what Harding’s business was, nor that he had been married previously, nor that he had two children. In May, she again met Harding in Auckland, and mentioned that she was going to Wellington to spend a holiday with a friend. She went to the Auckland station with her mother, who was seeing her off, and found to her surprise that Harding was there. After the train had gone a little way, Harding went to her carriage and sat with her. He induced her to leave the train at Hamilton, and she then took the step for which she had since felt more regret than she could express in words. Two days later they came on to Wellington, and Harding suggested a trip to Brisbane. He gave her glowing accounts of the tour, and she consented to go. In Brisbane she found a New Plymouth paper giving an account of proceedings in which it transpired that Harding had - been married, had two children, and that he had broken his wife’s nose, blacked

her eves, and generally assaulted hei very violently. Sue saw in the papei, too. that half the Norfolk road property was to go to the children. She tin'll asked for the other half. Her brother went to Brisbane and wanted to bring her back to New Zealand. Harding begged her to stay, and she

said that if he settled his properties upon her she would get married and stay. Harding refused, and site returned to Auckland. Harding wrote promising to make the settlement, and after a month’s stay in Auckland she went back to Brisbane. in October, 1911, they were both back in New Zealand again ; he had preceded her across from Australia. He met her. on the wharf. She at once asked: “Are yon going to make the settlement, or are you not ?’ ’She added taut she had had enough excuses from him, and that he must either make the settlement, marry her, or she would go home. He again promised the settlement, and they went to Hawera to live.

ANOTHER MYSTERY UNEARTHED There she “unearthed another mystery.” and after giving him a linal chance they were married in Wanganui. Prior to the marriage they went to Mr Allison, solicitor, in Wanganui, and she asked Mr Allison to draw up the settlement. Mr Allison asked Harding if, after making the settlements, he had enough left to pay his debts with, and Harding said that' he had. Harding refused to make’over all his properties, and she then said that she would have the two best,, and she worked out that this would leave her barely enough to live economically upon. Her first child was born on March 26, 1912, and her second on March 25, 1913, and these children, as well as Harding's two children, were living with her. When the settlement was made she did not know that Harding had any creditors, and he had never-at any time told her what the effect of the transaction would be on those to whom he owed money* He concealed his position to the end. Almost up to the day he filed she thought that he was flourishing in business, finally, her‘whole motive in getting the settlement was to provide a living for herself and her child veil:

THE CROSS-FIRE BEGINS. In .cross-examination Mr Skerret. asked Mrs Harding 'if she inserted a marripgq notice in the Auckland Herald of October 11, 1911 (a date prioi to her marriage). The wording 01 the riiotjcd, pvas ’ “Marriage : Harding—Hunt.— Op, September 28, at Brisbane, sop ■ jdf.. late, >1 auu'.s Harding, pJE i : Bupton r on-T^ ei ft, England, to Violet Stanislaus, elder doughtier of Alfred C. Hunt, ‘Hinemoa,’ Ouehunga.” , Witness replied that did not in sort the notice. Mr Skerrett than produced the manure, rjp.t, of the, ,^otice. Mr- Skerrett; Now, ,i may put, it' tr you ;! ‘thajL that* m your hand writing?, ~, . i Witney; .Yes. ~,, ■ Air Skerrett read the advertisemen over, j while Mrs Harding wrote, and the original and her transcript wor. then handed to the Court.

Air Skerrett: Will you swear tha that original notice was not writ to 1 by vonP

Witness: I will not say that tha is my handwriting. ' His Honor: Will you say it is not. Witness: I will not say that it is and will not say that it is not, he cause 1 don’t remember anythin*; about it.

Mr Skerrett took the copy of tin advertisement and the witness’s writ ing done in Court, and after a glane at them handed them to His Honor remarking; “Exactly what T though lias hapnened. This is not in lie usual free style.” “That is very unfair,” interjected Sir John Findlay, rising quickly. Air Skerrett.: Why it is? There an

the papers. Sir John Findlay: Because you die tated far too fast for her. His Honor observed that the ad

vertiseinent was written on pope stamped “Central Hotel, Hawera.” Hr Skerrett: Oh, 1 had not notice that.

Witness: Quite likely. . . Bn it has nothing whatever to do wit.

Mr Skcrrett: Has it not? That ad vertisement is a lit'—isn't is?—Ves Was there any talk of marriage ii Hamilton, or in Wellington, immedi atelv afterwards ?—None.

If yon really regretted what yot had done in Hamilton, eouldn’t ym have easily asked him while you wore in Wellington to marry' you?—l had very little opportunity, really no opportunity, The two weeks in Welling ton were two whole of enjoy-

ment. Did you over ask him about his position or Ids prospects -—No, they had nothing to do with me. What do von mean?—-I mean what

I say, Well, explain it?- -1 say what I mean. How did you explain to your parents your absence in Australia from May to duly?- I didn’t give much explanation. I was too frightened to. 1 let my brother explain. It never oeenrred to you when you saw your brother m Wellington or your return to tell him that you were going to HaweraHo b(* married? —No: 1 suppose lie thought that we were married. He would soon have asked up if he didn't. Did you not, in your statement tthe Assignee, say that there.was n talk about marriage on your seeonc visit to Brisbane?—My statement, s> tar as I knew at the time was true,

Witness said also, that Harding and his two children were consumptive, and, so perhaps were her own two babies.

“BUSINESS POLICY.” Edward John Arlow was recalled by Mr Skerrett, to ask him about a statement made in evidence by Mrs Hurtling, that Arlow had told her in Hamilton that Harding was a wealthy man. Arlow denied this statement. Witness also said that at the time he had not offered, Mrs Harding any advice respecting what he looked upon as an unauthorised expedition by Harding and herself.

Sir John Findlay: 1 see. She was in the hands of this man, ami for business reasons yon deemed it inid visa ble to offer a word of advice to this young girl. 1 thank you.

“EVERY CHARACTER!STIC OF FRAUD.” The addresses of counsel were then fie a rd. Mr Skerrett. .in concluding his address, declared that the Hardings uid given the Court a tissue of falsemods, and that the right reading of lie case was that the woman was mile r the domination of a man whom dm would have married at any time, mt who was not the man to marry fier until he found that he was in 'Jueer Street financially, and wished o save his property from his credi:ors. His Honor announced that he would ake time to consider the case.—Dominion.