A WARD IN CHANCERY. A Defiant Military Man.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 86, 24 January 1885, Page 6

A WARD IN CHANCERY. A Defiant Military Man.

Before the Chancery Judge in London on November ISth a motion was brought forward to commit an officer in her Majesty's army to prison for having, in defiance of an order of court, communicated indirectly with a young lady under age, who had been made a ward of court by her father with a view to prevent the respondent from marrying his daughter. It appeared that the gentleman had beon seeing the young lady against the wish of her father, and the lovers had attempted to run away, but had been prevented by the vigilance of the lady's father. Stepa were then taken to make the lady a ward of court, and an injunction was granted in June last restraining the suitor from communicating directly or indirectly with the young lady. While the courtship was goinc: on letters had passed between the lovers by means of a maid servant, who was summarily dismissed from hor employment. Some time ago the officer was dining with some mutual friends of himself and the young lady, and after dinner, in conversation with a daughter of the family, told her that the discharged servant was very unhappy because- she had hoard nothing of hor young mistress, to whom she was very much attached, and had threatened to drown herself. He also wrote down on a scrap of paper the address of the servant and gave it to the lady, and she afterward gave it to the waid of court. The officer also said that he was going abroad, but would come back, even if ho were at Timbuctoo, if the ward would wait a year for him Mr Cook son, Q C, and Mr Harry Green wood moved to commit the officer. Mr Chubb opposed tho motion on an affidavit by the officer to tho eQ'oct that he had done what he ('id without premeditation, and without any intention of disobeying tho court. Mr Justice Pearson eaid that he very much regretted having been obliged to li&ten to the arguments addrc&sed to him on behalf of the officer. If, instead of instructing counsel to argue, he had simply said that what he had done was done inadvertently, he should have accepted the explanation. The respondent, an officer in the army, was as such in that position of life in which of all others ho was better acquainted with discipline and all that discipline requires, and must know better than anyone else that tho orders of those in higher authority ought to bo submitted to. Ho considered that tho respondent had by his own showing been guilty of a deliberate breach of injunction, and it was only tho consideration of the very serious penalties that Mould result to tho officer that induced him not to commit him. But he never gave the respondent notice through his counsel that if there should bo any further attempt to communicate he should, without hesitation, notwithstanding the very serious consequences which would ensue, send him to prison. He now ordered him to pay the costs of this motion as between solicitor and client.