SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 257, 9 March 1911, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS. ] The New Plymouth sessions of the I Supreme Court were resumed yesterday ' morning, Mr. Justice Edwards presiding. THE DOUGLAS SHOOTING CASE. The court resumed the hearing of evidence as to the good character of George William Gedgc, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of having caused actual i bodily harm by discharging a gun loaded 1 with shot at Kirkby under such circumstances that if death had ensued hi would have been guilty of manslaughter. The first witness called was Mrs. Jano R. Dougherty, living on the Bird road, Stratford, who deposed that she was formeily a member of the Taranaki Education Board. For some years she had lived in the Toko district, where she had known accused well. He had worked foi her husband for three seasous, and they had always found him very hard-work-ing, reliable, and honest. Gedge was a most inoffensive man. He was a most affectionate father to his children, ana very self-sacrilicing. Mr. Spence stated that he was prepared to call the doctor, but Mr. Weston would admit that the injuries to Kirkby were not serious. Mr. Weston said he desired to call the two young men concerned in the case, to show that they had not provoked accused. John Welsh, farm laborer, employed by W. Raikes, who lives between Douglas and Strathmore, stated that he frequently passed Gedge's tents on his way to Toko to visit his parents. He had never used disgusting language while passing Gedge's place, or done anything to annoy Gedge. Witness was i with Kirkby when the latter was shot. They were singing while going into Toko. On returning also they were both singing, but they did not use any language that might be considered in any way_ insulting or disrespectful to Gedge or liis family. Witness did not know I the Gedges, but had heard that they had lived there. Witness' horse had been shot, and he thought it would most likely have to be destroyed. It had been shot in the hocks of the hind legs, and was verv lame.

Mr. Weston was proceeding to question the witness about the assistance he had given to Kirkby, when his Honor interrupted with the remark, "I am not going to re-try the case. I allowed you to call this witness to clear his character."

In reply to Mr. Spence, the witness said he had one drink in Toko ana Kirkby had two. His Honor (to Mr. Spence): Are you prepared to find sureties of the peace? Mr. Spence: Yes, your Honor. Mr. Weston then called

Lionel Wynn Kirkby, who had been working on Raikes' farm, and who deposed that the night on which he was shot was the first occasion on which he had ridden along the road in question. There was nothing objectionable in the song they were singing. He had never seen nor heard of the Gedges before. When witness was shot he and Welsh were singing. When they passed Gedge's camp they did not say anything unbecoming or do anything to insult Gedgc. In reply to Mr. Spence, his Honor said he did not think it was necessary for accused's two youngest children to be called to give evidence of the language used by one of the two young men.

His Honor (to Mr. Spence): Well, is accused able to pay the costs? Mr. Spence: He has no money, your Honor.

His Honor, after remarking that Gedge had seven children, asked how many were earning their own living He was informed that three were. "' After a few minutes' consultation with the Deputy-Registrar as to the costs of the case, his Honor directed that accused should be brought up again at 2 p.m. He intended to put accused on his own recognisances to keep the peace, but he wanted to see what the costs were. In the meantime accused would be liberated on his own recognisance as before. °

When the court resumed after lunch the Deputy-Registrar informed his Honor that the costs amounted to £ls 15s 4d. Mr. Spence asked if his Honor would allow the accused six months in which to/pay the costs.

His Honor said that he would allow accused to pay off the amount at the rate of £1 per month. Addressing the accused, his Honor said he felt justified in releasing him without any term of imprisonment for various reasons. The Grand Jury, verv properly lie thought, had negatived anv intention of his to hurt anybody. His character was excellent-that was not disputed by the Crown-and was established by respectable witnesses. His action was quite unjustifiable. His Honoi said he recognised what accused had (lone was merely to frighten the parties, but it was hardly necessary to say thai must not be done by firearms; it was not likely accused would do so a<min Jt he was being annoyed again he must adopt some other method of preventin'o its recurrence which would preclude him coming before the criminal court. Accused was ordered to enter into a recoenisanoe of £ 100 with two sureties of ioO each to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for two years, and pav the costs the first payment to be made ft fi?f ; and , subse, l uen t Wments on tlie fir.,t of each succeeding month The sureties were forthcoming, and t-edge was discharged from custody. ADJOURNMENTS. The case j n which Lewis John Pcpperell pleads not guilty to three char-res of having carnally known a girl over the age of 12 years and under the a«e t i ', "1 "T ,!' 10,lths of Ma y. J«ne and July last, at loko, was adjourned until tuc June sessions, on account of the principal w.tness being ill and unable to attend medical evidence to this effect being forthcoming. Accused was allowed bail as before, ,n two sureties of £SO each and Ins own recognisance of £SO J-fio Court also adjourned until tht' June sessions the case in which Albert dward Madgwick is charged with cat-tie-stealing near Bahotn, owing to th, Zn£l T. S '" in r the NCW Hospital the question of bail was held overurit, 2 p.m., to enable Mr. Spence! to see* he could obtain two surctie" I When the matter was again brou»hii before his Honor yesterday afternoon J Mi. Spcnce said that he had two suretics. Hail was then lixed at accused's own recognisance of £IOO, and two sureties of £ U O each, to be approved bv the Deputy-Registrar. ' A HUSBAND'S PETITION.

A divorce case, m which August K„ e . void Nielson petitioned for a divorce from I"* wife, 1 lien Marie Nielsen, on tZ pound of desertion, presented .some peculiar features. The petitioner is (is years 01.1, and his wife is 70 vcars of flgc Mr. J. B. Roy appeared for the petitioner. The petition was not le tended.

fhe petitioner, who is aUaborer, ]ivin<r on the .Norfolk road, Miro, deposed that I|R nwmo < l Marie Jensen at Hoisens, in Denmark, on April 24. 18(ilj l'liere were no children born of (he n i llr . riage. About seven or eight years after the marriage tliev eame to Xew Zealand, and resided in the neighborhood of Xcw

Plymouth. About 23 years ago his wife ; left him, and ran away with a man named Fred Ansen. Ansen had been convicted of stealing some goods from witness.

Counsel: And then he stole your wife. Petitioner: Yes; it was but a common thing. Asked if lie had been a good husband, witness answered, in his broken English, that he did not want to praise himself up, but he would say he had been a good husband. She might say differently. All that had been between them was the young man who had taken her away.

Tv iiuii wjim-ss gave 1115 age us us, nis Honor remarked: "I suppose lie wants to get married again?" "I haven't dared to tisk him," replied Mr. Roy. John C. Nicholson, solicitor, stated that lie. called upon the respondent at her residence at Waiotemarama, in the I-lokianga county, and served her with the requisite paper 3. Respondent admitted that she had left her husband about twenty-live years ago in Taranaki, but she did jiot say why. A man named Ansen was present, and he said that the respondent was his wife. They had not heard of the petitioner for about twenty-five years. Witness explained that he established the identity of the respondent by asking her whether she had had correspondence with Messrs. Roy and Nicholson, solicitors, New Plymouth, in reference to an advertisement which had appeared in the Auckland Weekly News. She replied in the affirmative, and then gave details of her marriage with Nielson. Formal evidence was given to verify the copy of 'the marriage certificate which had been procured from Donmark.

His Honor remarked that it was extraordinary that petitioner should have waited for over 20 years before instituting divorce proceedings. His Honor (drily): I expect he wants liimself free before death. His Honor (drily): I expect he wants to make some girl of 17 years or so happy.

A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute at the end of three months. DRIFTED TO DIVORCE.

Nora Rosalind McLean sought the dissolution of her marriage with John Hector McLean on the grounds of desertion.

Mr. Hutchen (instructed by Mr. Sellars, of Hawera) appeared for petitioner. There was no appearance of respondent. Nora Rosalind McLean, the petitioner in the case, .-aid she was married on March 4, 1892, at Manaia.but did not live with her husband immediately after the marriage, as the ceremony took place against the wishes of her people. In 1893 her husband came over to her in Nelson, and ; they lived together. In May of the same year, while living with her husband's mother at l'almersou North, her husband was arrested on a charge of cattle stealing, found guilty and .sentenced to two years' imprisonment. After the trial petitioner went back to Nelson, where a son was born on January -20, 1894. Her husband did not return to her after liis release, but about a month after he wrote and said he was going to Thursday Island to engage in pearl fishing. Petitioner next heard in 1901 of his having been wounded in the South African war. At the request of his uncle, petitioner wrote, asking him to come back on the promise of getting the farm. He replied that he would come back when he got some money. Petitioner supported herself by housekeeping for her brothers at Kaponga. In 190(i lie returned to New Zealand, and her eldest brother offered to give him Work, but he thought ho would make more money shearing. She wanted him to go milking on shares and promised to join him, but that was too much like hard work. The interview lasted half an hour and he went to Auckland. In 19(19 he wrote a letter saying he was passing through Hawcra, and asking petitioner to meet him, but the letter arrived too late. In it he spoke of getting a divorce, She replied saying he could do as he liked. In October, 1919, her husband came to her house in Hawera and again spoke of a divorce, and she said she would see a lawyer about it. Her husband never contributed to her support or to her child's. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months. Costs were fixed on the lowest scale. AX OLD MAX'S WILL. Elizabeth Oreenlees (Mr. C. H. Weston) v. Mary Ann Gray and Benjamin Gray (Mr. Quilliam), probate of the will of Benjamin Gray, the elder, to plaintiff as executrix. Elizabeth Greenlees, spinster, Okato, said she came out to Xew Zealand with

her uncle in 18!)4, being about twenty years of age. She was an orphan, the daughter of Mr. (-J ray's youngest sister, and she came to New Zealand on receipt of a letter from her cousin, Mr. (Iray's son. At that time he had two freehold farms and his cattle. Some time after coming out her uncle said she was to become a member of the household. That was said in the presence of his wife, who always objected to her presence in the house.

At this stage the deed of separation which was afterwards executed was put in; also the deed of conveyance of the freehold of 120 acres on August 5, 1800, to the. son of the testator.

Continuing, witness said her uncle thought the latter was a deed of gift, and did not expect the son to support his mother until he was not able to do so himself. Witness had to do tiie housekeeping, milking and other farm work and got nothing for it.

His Honor said there was no doubt testator did intend to convey something to witness, but it had to be shown that the intention continued to the end. Witness said the will was read over to her in Mr. Weston's ollice in the presence of witnesses, and she was to receive all his real and personal property and was to he the only executrix. The matter of the will was never mentioned, but he heard that on his death his wife would inherit a share of the property, and this disturbed his peace of mind. Testator said he provided for his wife by giving the freehold to his son, as he knew she would go with him. He told witness when at Nurse Ford's that he had seen Mr. Weston and was going t<i have a deed of gift made out. Next time she saw liim he told her Mr. Weston had asked him if he were quite right in his mind, and be was very angry, and said he would"take all his business from Mr. Weston. Witness said she did not want the ded'of gift, but would rely on the will already made. At this stage all witnesses were ordered out of court.

"Witness, continuing, said she went to Mr. Weston's and told him about it. Next time she saw her uncle she heard that Mr. George Grey was to draw up n deed of gift and she protested against it.

His Honor: What is the value of this property ? Mr. Weston: About £SOO. His Honor: Why, it will all be spent in litigation.

Witness said she did not want her uncle to sign the deed of gift. The money saved from the farm was put in the Savings Bank in her name. The shares in the dairy factory were to be put in her name, but she objected, as she did not care to have them in her name.

Mr. Quilliam admitted that up to 1!)07, prior to the time when the testator removed his will from Mr. Weston's ollice, his intention was to devise and bequeath all his real and personal property. Witness said the money put in tin' Savings Bank in her name had been withdrawn. The sum of £IOO was in' her name in the New Plymouth Savings Bank and £IOO in her uncle's name, as she could not get interest on more than £IOO. After his illness he sold the cattle through Mr. Mewton King to witness, testator supplying the money. His Honor: The whole thing is a dummy. What is the object of these fraudulent practices? Witness (continuing) said her uncle was in ill-health on several occasions, 'and she had to attend upon him. He.often remarked that she had too much to do, but that she was working for herself. A few weeks before his death testator said they should go into Mr. Grey's ollice and get the deeds signed, but she objected, as she 'was sure if that were done he would worry about being dependent upon her entirely. He replied that he would be just as happy after they were signed as before. About a month before he died testator had a conversation at his house with a Mrs. Goodin and witness about a will case appearing in the papers. Next morning he wanted then to go to New Plymouth and have the., will altered so that his wife would not' get any of the property, but they were never able to get to New Plymouth together. Testator always said he would not recover his health," and that everything would #0 to witness when he went.

Witness (to his Honor); T was quite willing that his wife should have part of the estate.

His Honor: Then why are you lighting it? Why not let the "law work out its course?

Witness said her uncle never told lier the will was taken from .Mr. Weston's office. During the last few years lie seemed kinder and much more'thoughtful to her. Mrs. Gray was not paid anything of late.

His Honor: Then when all this mono) was being put in the bank, the old woman was being left destitute, and you were getting everything. Did it not ap peal to you as being right and propel that she should be considered in the matter?

Witness, continuing, said Mrs. Graynever inquired about his health and never came to see him when he was ill. About two months before he died it was suggested that the husband and wife should be brought together by witness, and when this was mentioned to him he got very angry. The lease and insurant policies were kept in an unlocked drawer in his bedroom. In August, 1010, Mr. Gray and witness went on a trip to Auckland, but lie buried his money in the garden at his own home before ho went away. The winter before Mr. Gray died the rooms were re-papered, and a lot of papers and magazines, etc., were burned. Probably the will was destroyed at the time. Mr. Gray's relations with his other relatives were considerably strained. Witness had nothing to do with the interment of the body. To Mr. Quilliam: The family were on very friendly terms with each other when she arrived in Xew Zealand. Her uncle's attention to her seemed to annoy Mrs. Gray. Her wages then were 10s a week, and .she got a few presents from him. Mrs. Gray left because Mr. Gray would not turn" witness out. Slit denied that she took Mrs. Gray by the shoulders on the night before' the latter left and pushed her. She had never touched her in anger. She had left her uncle's place on occasions, but returned. He was not well enough to come to Xew Plymouth to sign the deed, bin. went on a trip to Auckland in August; he was well one dav and ill the next. In April, 1003, the will left everything to witness with the exclusion of the wife. Shortly after Mr. Gray got a reduction of from 10s to 3s per week (which he was'[laying to his wife) on the ground Hint be could not afford it. Witness took no interest in what her uncle paid to bis wife. His Honor: Vou should have had an interest in it because all the money the old man had was made over,.to,you. Witness said she never had any serious rows with hor uncle. It was not true that- on one occasion she was standing at the doorstep screaming and (lirowing clothes out and Mr. Gray talking loudly to her from within; she never did anything to cause her tinck to leave the house, nor did she hit her uncle in the milking shed with a bail rope. She did not go the house where the body was lying and ask how much money was on the body. It was not suggested by witness that perhaps if money was missing it had been buried in the garden. She told Mr. Willie Gray she did not know if her uncle had left I a will and could not tell until she went

to New Plymouth, and if not, that she would claim two years' wages. .She said nothing of the kind to that effect She denied that, she had asked Mr. Grant for the rent, or that she had said there was a will leaving everything to her. In consequence of refusal to allow an inventory to be taken, it had not been made to this day, although a letter from her solicitor said it would be worse for her to do so. She never saw the will in a drawer in the house where her uncle kept the lease and insurance policies. She had never seen the will since it was read over at Mr. Weston's office. On hrst going to her uncle she was told she would be treated like the boy. The boy paid £SO on the property, and her uncle paid the other £SO, which made it clear. The boy worked until he was 2o years of age without wages. Re-examined: The corpse was taken to Mr. Willie Gray's house and left there, no one being in the house. Her uncle's wishes in regard to the place of interment and other matters were totally disregarded by the relatives. Mr. Willie Gray said he had been through every office in New Plymouth, and there was no will; also he suggested that Mr. Weston should act for her. She objected to the valuer coming into the house because the son was with him, and he haa not been to see his father for some time before he died.

Mr. Weston said the next evidence would be Mr. T. S. Weston's, which, by consent of the other side, was put in In writing. This was in regard to the will. Laura Ford, nurse, Courtenay street, New Plymouth, said she knew the late Mr. Ben Gray very well as a patient, and recounted his remarks while in her place relative to the provision he was making for his wife, son, and niece. Mr. T. S. Weston's (senior's) evidence was put in in writing relative to the position as disclosed.

George Grey, solicitor, New Plymouth, said he attended on Mr. Gray 'at Mrs. Ford's nursing home as to the'transfer and assignment of leasehold property and personalty to Miss Greenlees, who was to enter into a covenant of £1 per week to him during his lifetime ami furnish him with free bed and board. The documents were prepared, and Mr! Gray advised him to seek other solicitor's advice in the interests of Miss Greenlees, and she was present at that interview, but did not take any decided action of any nature. The opinion he gained was absolutely the reverse of the suggestion that Miss Greenlees wat pushing the matter. The documents were not signed. Mr. Gray was concerned about his wife claiming arrears of maintenance, and it seemed to the witness he was trying to defeat any ends of hers and to deprive her of any benefit by the will. Miss Greenlees 'was the benefactor and sole executrix under the will.

Thomas Barr, laborer, Punilio, said he first worked for the late Mr. Gray in 1900 doing anything he required. Miss Greenlees did the milking. Testator told witness two or three times that the property would be left to Miss Greenlees, the last time being as late as five or six months before his death. His Honor: Miss Greenlees caught the horse and harnessed it up for him? I should have thought a gallant youii"man like you would have done that! " Witness- to Mr. Quilliam: He would swear he did not say Miss Greenlees led Mr. Gray a terrible life.

John Goodin, farmer, Okato, said Miss Greenlees looked after the late Mr. Gray as if she was his own daughter. MiGray was very grateful to Her for it' He had told witness the girl was provided for on his death.

Mrs. Goodin gave evidence as to discussing "a curious will case" with Mr. Gray, upon which he seemed anxious* as to his own position. Dr. Wylie, F.K.C.S., New Plymouth, said he knew the late Mr. Cirav six years previous to his death; he suffered "from chronic progressive heart trouble He referred to his niece in a more or less affectionate manner, and on one occasion he told witness his niece would have everything 0 n his death, with the exception of the farm, which went to his boy.

John Jury, farmer, Franklev road, said I he was farming for 14 years at Tatara-1 maika, and was on very Rood terms with the late Mr. Gray.' This witness after examination was characterised by Mr Weston as a hostile witness, but his' Honor would not agree to treatin" himj as such. ° This closed the case for the plaintiff, j and further hearing was adjourned until 10 o clock this morning. IN BANKRUPTCY. I Re Charles Ferguson Benjamin (Mr. A. R. Standish).—Motion for discharge. —His Honor stated that the Official Assignee had uo objection.—Motion granted. Re James Williams (Mr. A. 11. Johnstone, instructed by Mr. McVeagh).— Motion for discharge.—His Honor said It appeared from the reports that the man became bankrupt too often.—Mr. Johnstone said if the discharge were granted work could 1m obtained, which would likely allow him to get on his feet again.' He produced letters from three creditors favorim; the application for discharge.-11 is Honor said that what be referred to was some years ago. and as no one appeared to oppose, the discharge would be granted.