CASHMAN'S CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1054, 21 April 1882, Page 2

CASHMAN'S CASE.

(Contimttd from our last.) Mrs Eeiux continued., Nothing took place which revealed to Cashman the contents of the box. I did riot see Cashman from tho tirno I left' him at Manrieeville till he camo to Wanganui; Wlien I went to Wellington I put tip at Brown's boarding house, whoro Iromained a day and a half. My husband followed me and asked: ine to return, I said I would, hut while ho wont |o look for a brake to fetch the boxes I saw what he had put in the papers about mo and determined not to go back. My husband saw tho boxes in tho room. Tho boxes aro mine, I had them before I was married. I left for Wanganm the same evening by steamer, It was nine days after when Cashman arrived. I cannot say why Cashman came there, (after the question was repeated). I tolegrammed for him. I was hard up, and haying 110 money sont for him. He replied that he did uot like to send money but would come himself and pay me a visit, I was present at the lock-up when the conversation took phwe between Cashman and the police. Mr Sandilands; Did Cashman say you ran away with him. Mrs fteiux : Yes, I did run away with him—at least they all say so, and I suppose its true. (A laugh.) My husband, when I lmd my Inst cluld, B:iid I had it by ,aud illused me, Cross-examined by Mr Beard. The witness said that sho scut the telegram after sho bad been in Wauganui for a week. Slio scut it addressed to tho Post Office, Wellington. She was on pretty good tonus with Cashman before they left Maunceville. Mr Beard : You wero hardly frionds I BUPPOSO ?. Mrs Eeiux • I don't know. Mr Beard: Mr Cashman wont for the man to fetch your box I Mrs Reiux i I persuadod him to do it! Mr Beard; Ho took the box to tho express 1 Mrs Eeiux: I helped him to take it! Mr Beard: How lung did Cashmon board «ith you at Manrieeville ? Mrs Rieux: On tho first occasion for three months I There wero two rooms in the house 1

Mr Beard: Cashman must have seen seen tho boxes tlion 1 Mrs Rieux: Ho might not have seen liioni! Mr Beard : Your kitchen is not very large? Mrs Eeiux: I liavo never measured it, (A laugh.) . Mr Beard; What lime was it when you left the house 1 Mrs Eeiux: I hadn't got a clock, and so I could not tell. Mr Beard : Why did not you leave earlier? Mrs Rniux: I was (ashamed to go by daylight as I had no proper clothing fpr tho children, and so I wrapped the blanket round them, jn Mastei'lon I borrowed soip clothes to tako them into Wellington with. Mr Beard; When you went to Wellington what did you intoml to do ? Mrs Eeiux; The best I could for my children, Mr Beard: What did you actually do ? Mrs Eeiux: I minded my children, Mr Beard; Did you earn money after you went to Wellington ? Mrs Eeiux: No!

Mr Beard; Did Cashman and you live in tlie same house at Wangauui ? Mrs Eeiux: No; the [house was mine. He came occasionally to see me. Mr Bead: Hew did you live? Mrs Eeiux: Out of the thirteen pounds my husband gave mo, Mr Hoard; Ilid you have any money from Caslmvin since you went to Wan<;ariiii] Mrs ll'.-iux : None except the fivo pounds which ho lent mo when I sent for liiin. Ho boarded at tho hotel at which 1 was staying, Mr Beard: Since you went to Wanganui have you and ho lived together as man and wifo ? Mr Sandilauds objected to this question, and Mr Beard while maintaining his right to put it, consented to let it pass. Mr Beard: Have you and Cashman lived in the same house at Wanganui? Mrs Reiux: No I Mr Beard; \fliat other money did you receive in Wanganui ? Mrs Eeiux: I earned two pounds by washing and sewing. Mr Beard: Havo you not receive! other money besiilo that you havoVmei:tioned? Mrs Eeiux: No!

Mi' Board! Then how is it you pi i L2o for Cashman tlio other day 1 • Mrs Keiux: I did not count that money as my own ! Mr Beard: How did you get it ? Mrs Eeiux: From Cushman in Wa'ganui, I was doing soma washing f» him, and lie left his coat for me to tuL care of with the money in it! Mr Beard: How much did Cashm ;i pay you for washing his clothes? Mrs Eoiux 1 1 charged him the same a anyone else! (A laugh.) ' Mr Beard ; Where was your husband when you left Mauricevilie 1 Mrs Eeiux: Lying in bed drunk I Mr Sandilands: Was he quite when lie told you to leave him 1 Mrs Reiux; Yes! The Court: What name did you go ! y in Wangauui ? Mrsßeiux: I called myself Mrs Adami 1 The Court: What name did Cashm n go by!

Mrs Reiux; I called him Cashman, lut I think others called him Smith 1 The Court: "■ I think you said y:u took a house 1" Mrs Eeiux:" I took it before Cashm m came up at three shillings a week. The Court: " Did you find any more money beside the twenty five pounds in tho coat." Mrs Eeiux:" No, that was all there was."

Mr Sandilands asked permission for the defendant to make a statement, but this was objected to by Mr Beard. Mr Beard wished to put a question to Mrs Reiux, re cohabiting with Cashman, but to this Mr Sandilands objected, Mr Sandilands then summed up the case for the defence, contending that unless His Worship was clearly satisfied that the man and woman, when they left Mauriceville took away the property with au understanding that they were to come together the ease for the prosecution must fail. He claimed that on this point Mrs Reiux evidence was entitled to credence

Mr Beard said that all that was necessary was to show that they had lived together. The Court said it was prepared to go a great way with Mr Sandlanda in hia claim that there should be an intention to commit adultery. That intention ■ from the nature of the case could not be proved by direct evidence but must be gathered from the facts and circumstances surrounding it. They found a woman leaving her home in the dead of night assisted by a man who after parting with her communicates with her again in Wellington, and subsequently rejoining her at Wanganui, supplying her with money and making her the custodian of his money. There was also the conversation between them sworn to by the ffanganui constable •and confirmed by the women herself, What did all this mean but that they were living in adultery at Wanganui, and that this cohabitation was.'pre-arranged,. It could not regard it in any other light. It seemed' to it that there wai in

intention to establish an adulterous - intercourse. Theriwith regardto proof |lj of larceny of the property "if that the proof of possession was sufficient that the accused assisted in removing it and became a party'with the woman in' remoyino; it without the consent of her. husband. They had the further evidence tliat jlie accused was living in the.sjiiiig liouso as the woman and tho Court de'oijJ : od to aontenco Cashman tp. onp raoncUq impvlsonnjont with'hard tybor. Mr Sandilands tasked th§ Court {q into consideration this, three ar foul'- weeds' that tlje'accused had already spent in cfinßnoment but the Court declined-to yary its decision.