RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT. TRATES COURT. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, SEPT. 4th, 1888. (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq. R.M.) Taylor v. Taylor : Application for pro

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 297, 8 September 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT. TRATES COURT. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, SEPT. 4th, 1888. (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq. R.M.) Taylor v. Tay l or : Application for pro

tection order. In tli i-^ case the plaintiff, Mrs Taylor, sought to obtain a protection oulet nn lor the provisions of the Married Worn-Mi's Property Act against her husband, John T.iylor (Shaftesbury), on the ground of his having ha'utn illy failed to provide for herself an 1 chil Iron, without such failure having been cause- 1 by sickness or any other jn*t cnu*e. Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge, Julin Esther T;i)'lor (sworn) 3tated ns follow; : — I am (ho wife of John Taylor, the defendant in this case. I wish for protection from my, husband because he fails to provide for me and my children, six in number. For the pa*t four months he has entirely left me without support, and also been backwards and forwards from Auckland and elsewhere and taking things away from the home, to provide himself with drink. During the time he was away in Auckland he came up to see us, bub said he had nothing for us, although stating he was doing very well in Auckland. On that occasion ho remained three days, and when he left took away provisions from the house for himself. I can prove before he went away there was work ho could have had, but he refuscH to do it, prefeiring <o go back and forwaid between the townships drinking, and coming home at night to quarrel with me. On several occasions he has threatened to take my life, and on two occasions took np a knife to me. He has never struck me, as I kept out of his way. I have several times had (o go out to get assistance from the neighbours to quiet him. On one occasion he locked us all up and put the keys in his pocket, j saying he would set fire to the place! I i escaped out of one of the wiudowa and | got assistance. He was half mail with ' drink at the lime. I live in a veiy lonely ' place, and am afraid of my very life and for the safety of my children. j The following witnesses gave evidence onbohaU of the plaintiff :—: — John Squirrell (sworn) : I am a storekeeper living at Shaftesbury ; 1 j know the defendant in this case. Just before ho went away from home to Auokhuul, I saw him in at Smardon's hotel, Waiorongomai,tlrinkinsr. Knowing he had some contract work, I nslcd him how it was he was not at if.. He s;iid he did not go en with the (ontrnct. uoik as it wc.s not good enough. He said f however, ho could hove gone on

with some other work, btffc- did" not say* why he did not do sp. t this time he was alt work at Messrs Thomson and Herries** place, btrfc made some excuse for leaving. At' tffb* time I offered him work at a price he fixed himself: one halt' was to go against his store account, and one half to' be paid in cash. He took the 1 work and went on with it for about a fortnight, and then went away in the middle 1 of it. By the amount of work he did \t was clear he Woirfd earn £G per month, receiving at least £$ pcr 1 month in cash, which, together with Mrs Taylors earnings, would be amply sufficient to keep them. ! E. F. Koche (sworn) : I reside at Shaftesbury, and know the defendant in this case. The defendant couU have had plenty of work from me if he would do it, but I was obliged to dismiss him owing to his negligence and carelessness. He has had a good deal of work from! me in past years, but latterly he did nofc appear to care to do it at all. I know the plaintiff to be a very hard-working industrous woman ; but "were it not for assistance she received from my wife and Mrs Cox, I am quite sure she must haye r starved within the last couple of months. ' George Brunt f sworn) : I am a labourer residing at Sbaffcesbuiy, and ■know both plaintiff and defendant. Mrs Taylor has had to come across to my place for protection more than once or twice. On one occasion she came running over about nine o'clock at night, having got out through the window after her husband had locked her in and threatened to set fire to the place. Some of the children have at other times come over crying to fetch me. Defendant has not been sick, and would not work when he had a chance. After going to Auckland, he returned on one occasion and said he could get plenty of work therf , and would not come back again to live in this dead-and-alive hole. John Taylor (sworn) : Am the husband of complainant. The reason I had to leave was because I could not get employment. Less than four months ago I gave her what money I received for work done for Messrs Thomson ar-d Henies. I always gave her all my earnings. It was by li— r wish I went away, md she provi h»d Ihe monpy for me to go to AncMnnd wif.h to look for work. The first month I was in Auckland I was pn-tty fortunate* as rpoflpls work, and as soon is I yofc a few shillings together T thnn^hr I would like to come up and see my wife niuJ children. On my return to Auckhm ', owing lo the wot weather, I could not t>ef. work, She has had my boy*<* eirniiiijs. The witness Brunt, says she w i iit over to hi* house for protection This is not, thp case ; but since flmfc witness lost I'is wife soiiip liyh'ein months ago slip has been over there, takiny more enre of liis hou^" th ur of me ; and thuf lias Iwh the win>l« c*»n«e of unpleasantness. On mv return from An^k'and I lvMr* somotfiing with res] Pet to her which caused mo to vuiie lo her. tuiil here, me th^ i^tler< she wroln m° in reply, (His Woisliip having yen ' through the letter:, th -n r*a I 00-ue portion's out. and sui I the whole tenor of the letters told strongly njjninst th« defcn-Lmt, an I in favour of pliintiff ) In reply to i>l.ii 'tiff, witness sal 1 : I <li I not s^ive my consent, for you to go over to George Brunt's house an<l no tho 1-est yon could to n^^ist his family. In reply to His "Worship : I deny that J took diiuk at Smardon's, beyond that I sometimes took Airs Snmrdou • lown a I'unch of flowers and she u«ed tr» give me a drink. I deny that I spent, my earnings in Auckland on drink. I never spent any of my earnings in drink. At the close of t'ue evidence. His Worship having stated his intention of granting tlie order asked for, gome discussion took place with respect to whom the house and three"acrt»s of land belonged to. Mrs Taylor sai 1 she really could not say whose ifc was. The witness Squirrell stated defendant was one of the Grant and Poster settlors, and had never received (he Crown grant to the land. Mr Hanmer, acting for Miles Bros , claimed against it for passage money, and other advances, etc. His "Worship sai 1 he would adjourn dealing with that part of the question until he had seen Mr Hanmer. Tiie plaintiff said she wished possession and to have control of the children. Defendant said he wished to have the childrenPlaintiff claimed a sewing machine, pony, some books, etc. as her property, purchased with her separate earnings. His Worship granted plaintiff the order asked for, possession of the goods above referred to, and also control of the children j and addressing defendant, said it was qnito evident he was not fit to have the charge of the children. A man who came before him aivl deliberately stated he was in the habit of getting drink from the publican^ .without having in some way to pay for it— well, he could only say it was a very remarkable instance indeed. His experience had shown him that a woman must be very much trodden on indeed when she resorted to the course adopted by plaintiff in the present case As a rule they stick to their husbands throng*} thick and thin. Another thini* ho wished to remark on, and that wns the attempt he had made to come and tell him ins version of the case before the Court and behind plaintiff's back. If he had a y-ood defence to make he, need not resort to such measures as that. Defendant, in reply, reiterated what he had stated in evidence : that heronKl not get work, and a so that the people all seemed to have a '" down " on him an-1 to d'slike him ; ho did noi know why.