STRUGGLE FOR A CHILD

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17980, 27 March 1930, Page 8

STRUGGLE FOR A CHILD

HUSBAND SEEKS CUSTODY. WIFE RESISTS PETITION. NO CHANGE IN ORDER. Details of an alleged struggle for the custody of a child were given in Hamilton Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Air. S. L. Paterson, S.AI., when Horace William Burrell, commercial traveller, Auckland sought variation of an order made 18 months ago, under which his wife, who is separated from him, was given custody of the child. The husband now asked for the child to be placed in his care. The child in question is a hoy, aged five, named Roland Courtney Burrell. For the petitioner Air. D. Seymour appeared, respondent being represented by Air. H. J. McMullin. The following evidence was taken after we went to press yesterday. Cross-examined by Air Seymour, respondent denied having refused Burrell permission to see the child as it was suffering from a cold. When her husband was talking over affairs with her on the Monday night her mother was present part of the time. After some hesitation she admitted having discussed the subject with her mother. Petitioner was not in the habit of going away for a'month at a time from his business. On the occasion in question he had told her he was going to New Plymouth for a month to relieve a man there who was sick. It was just another case of petitioner having told her one more untruth. He and his family had done their best to turn the boy against her. Certain It Was Tuesday. In answer to Mr Seymour’s question whether she was sure that she had gone back on the Tuesday morning for the child, respondent stated that she was perfectly certain. She could not get him back, and had been treated very badly.- She thereupon went to her solicitor, who dictated a letter in her presence to Air and Mrs Burrell, sen., demanding the release of the child. Upon Mr Seymour pointing out that the date of the letter made it appear as having been written on a Wednesday, respondent was emphatic in saying that while the letter might have been dated Wednesday she saw it dictated on ’ the Tuesday. Quoting from the letter, Air Seymour said It stated “this morning,’’ under Wednesday’s date. Counsel wished to know, if the time was up on the Tuesday, why had respondent delayed going until the Wednesday. He queried whether she was not romancing, and framing up reasons for not going on the Tuesday. Respondent stated that it was an absolute lie that she had seized Airs Burrell, sen., by the wrist and threatened her with a broom. She did not lose her temper, as inferred, adding: “Airs Burrell evidently puts down emotion for a child for anger.’’ Questioned as to the ownership of the house she was living in, respondent said it did not belong to Air Warren. It was rented from people named Burrell, who were not relations. In answer to the magistrate’s query as to who she arranged about the house with, respondent said she had arranged matters herself. Mr Warren had drawn up the plans of the house, but sold it to the Burrells. Reverting to the day she attempted to take the child away from Air and Airs Burrell, senior, respondent, in answering Air Seymour, said that when the police were' sent for she refused to leave, as she wanted her child. She was at the house ten minutes after being informed the police had been sent for, and no police arrived. A Visit to Woodvllle. She had left Auckland on account of her health. She had been subjected to a great deal of worry and anxiety. An aunt at AVoodville- had several times invited her to visit her, and she had ultimately accepted. Respondent denied offering to leave the boy with the Burrells because he would have caused inconvenience for her at AA’oodville. She was there from six to eight weeks. She had known her uncle and aunt before, and they had treated her well. They were fond of her, and had sympathised with her for a while. Eventually, in answer to several questions put by Air Seymour, respondent admitted she had left the place not on quite the happiest of terms with her relatives. She had had a difference of opinion with her cousin. No Letters Pass. She had not heard from her aunt since then and no letters had passed between them. It had only been a family squabble, and her aunt had not ordered her out, as suggested by Air Seymour. She denied the inference that she had been responsible for breaking up the family happiness at AVoodville. Respondent denied all knowledge that after her departure from AVoodville her uncle had disappeared for a fortnight. Here Mr Seymour produced a letter from the aunt in question to Airs Burrell, sen., which stated that she had ordered respondent out of her house, as she had caused a great deal of mischief. When the uncle left his home his wife presumed he had gone to Australia, or had gone off in company with respondent. They had been married 20 years, and had had no disturbances until respondent had gone there. Respondent again maintained her ignorance of her uncle’s movements as put down in the lelter, and denied having been ordered out of the house. She had been housekeeping while her aunt was away, and had quarrelled with the eldest son. His father (her uncle) had taken her side. Respondent again denied writing to her aunt after her visit, not oven a “bread and butter” letter of thanks, as Air Sevmour put it. As to funds, respondent said her father made her an allowance, which, with that her husband sent, was sufficient to keep her. The house was free of rent to her. A Luminous Document. Reference being made lo a report on respondent’s home by a child welfare officer, which Mr Seymour described as “ a most luminous document,” Mr AlcAlullin said that he had brought >1 before the court in the hope that il would lie of aid. He realised now that perhaps he should not have done so. The magistrate intimated that he had thought at the time it was an extraordinary report, supplying gratuitous information. Mr Seymour pointed out that remarks in it. about the Burrells, sen., home were quite uncalled for and quite foreign to the

inspection made —she had made derogatory reference to the elder Mr and Mrs Burrell’s home without even having seen it. Respondent in conclusion stated It was her intention now to reside permanently in Auckland instead of going round the country. Airs Lily Eskridge, mother of the respondent, in answer to Mr McMullin, said that the last time Burrell came he had taken the child away on a Saturday and returned him on ai Sunday evening. She had heard part of the conversation on the Afonday between her daughter and petitioner. She left the room for a while, and on her return heard her daughter say he could have the boy for two extra days, as petitioner was going to New Plymouth for a month. They went to fetch the child on the Tuesday and again in the afternoon, Refused admittance, they returned without the child. There was no truth whatsoever that her daughter had threatened Airs Burrell, senr., with a stick or that she had bruised her wrist. Witness stated she remained in a taxi while her daughter visited her solicitor. She thought that was on the Tuesday afternoon. The next day respondent told her she had written a letter to Mr and Mrs .Burrell, senr., demanding the. release of the child. She felt certain it was the Tuesday. The child seemed all right upon his return on the Thursday. He seemed pleased to get back and see his mother. The children were well looked after in her home. Witness stated she had two relatives at AVoodville, a sister and a brother. She suggested respondent should visit her aunt for the sake of her health, after repeated invitations. Witness said that news of her daughter being ordered out of the house was untrue. In fact at a later date her sister stayed with them. The children were wonderfully improved through their travels. Will In Respondent’s Favour. Airs Eskridge stated she had made a will that her daughter would inherit the home during her lifetime, and had provided for the children. In ■ answer to Mr Seymour, Mrs Eskridge said that she had not heard all Ihc conversation between petitioner and respondent on the occasion when he stated he was going to New Plymouth. She kept the infant child for its own sake. The hoy was no trouble to Airs Burrell in accompanying her to AVoodville. Mrs Eskridge considered Burrell a good inventor of plausible stories. Mr Seymour remarked that they,had come across a strange case of invention in examining respondent. Mrs Eskridge admitted it would bo strange if the mother did not call for the child on the appointed day. If Wednesday had been the day Mrs Burrell called on the solicitors, then it was a mistake on her part (witness's) saying it was Tuesday through her daughter always speaking of it as Tuesday. Witness stated she had heard nothing dei'ogatory from her sister, whom she averred was a truthful woman. Contradictory Evidence. Airs Eskridge said her daughter had written to her 1 aunt after leaying AVoodville. When informed that' respondent denied having done so, Mrs Eskridge reiterated that she had written. Her daughter’s memory must have been at fault. Respondent’s Memory Prodded. The Alagistrate informed witness that Air Seymour had prodded respondent's memory to some length and yet she had consistently denied writing any letter. Another peculiar thing about the case, remarked the Magistrate, was that he had heard of the AVoodville incident while he was at Tauranga from people who were not even aware that he knew the parties in the case. Khied With Kindness. Witness considered it was no use the children mixing; the husband’s family poisoned the child’s mind against the daughter and herself. AATien the child returned from Mr and Mrs Burrell. senr., he had apparently been killed with kindness, stuffed with lollies, and entertained in every way. This concluded the .evidence and cross-examination. Air McMullin, in addressing the Magistrate, said that in this case the whole of the facts had been before the Magistrate on August 28. Unless it was essential, the child should not be taken from the mother and giveii (o the father. There was no question but that the child’s welfare was at stake- The child at present had not a home with both parents. Applicant was the one to break up the home. Respondent’s story of the fiveday incident was undoubtedly truthful. It was inconceivable that she, a loving mother, could say, “Take the child; I have done with him.” Evidence showed the child benefited by being taken round the country. It would be unfair to both to separate brother and sister. Where the boy was he had good prospects and a good home in a good locality. Air Seymour, in his remarks, asked the Magistrate to consider the divergent stories of the two parties. Credibility in so far as evidence was concerned lay with petitioner. He had only made one slip which was easily explained. However, Airs Burrell’s attitude in the witness-box had been most unsatisfactory. She should be treated as an unreliable witness. Her evidence should not be treated with ihc same degree of revelance as Burrell's. The “devoted mother” business had only come in operation on the Wednesday, and since that day she had done it thoroughly. In some respects she was not an ideal mother; she was an untruthful woman. Magistrate’s Summing Up. In summing up his Worship said he had always regarded these cases as unfortunate. He had hoped previously to get some settlement between the two parties, but had found it impossible. There were faults on both sides. Originally some of the trouble had been due to the wife’s conduct and her behaviour towards her husband, hut the husband had acted foolishly then. The evidence on the AVoodville visit he could not take into account as it was based on rumour only. He did not consider the children should he separated, or that the boy should be placed in the care of his grandparents, paternal or maternal; only in extreme cases did the Gourt. decide on that procedure. He was sure that as Mrs Eskridge was apparently a level-headed woman and could supervise the respondent and the children, no change in the order was necessary. He therefore found for respondent, no costs to he allowed, her.