part 2
[Before Mr. 11. W. Nortlicroffc, S.M.]
Destitute Person's Act.—Hearlino v. Hearlino.— hearing of this case, which had been partly heard on Saturday, was resumed at the S.M. Court yesterday before Mr. H. \V. Northcroft, S.M. There were two charges against the accused, one of desertiug his three children, and the second of deserting his wife and leaving them without adequate means. Mr. Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, Mary Heat-ling, and Mr. O'Meagher for the defendant, Christopher Heading. The plaintiffs evidence had been takenonSaturday.audMr. Brassey now called Henry James Ferry, a bootmaker. He had been lodging with the Headings, who were in a destitute position, and he assisted to support them. He positively denied that there ever had been any improper relations between Mrs. Hearting and himself. Mrs. Hart, a grocer, in her evidence described the destitute position in which the plaintiff was when she and her two children were laid up with measles. She was without food, and her bed was made of old well boards. Witness had to lend Iter money to get necessaries. So far as she knew. Mr. Ferry had been a great friend to the Headings, and Hearling had himself told her so about a week ago. Ferry generally paid the bills for the household supplies of food. Mrs. Hearting, all the time witness knew her, was a hardworking, industrious, and respectable woman. Mr. O'Meagher addressed the Court and said the defendant had asked his wife to go back with him and she refused. Yes, said the magistrate, but that was after he had been cowardly enough to accuse his wife in the street of misconduct, and saying that her child was a bastard. Mr. O'Meagher admitted that this was illadvised and brutal, but it did not affect this case. Defendant had already two of the children under his mother's roof, and he was willing to take the third and his wife with it. He submitted there was no charge of deserting the children sustained. His Worship said that there was a charge to answer. He had only heard part of the case, but so far the evidence was that the defendant had told his wife in the public street that her child was a bastard, and she would be wanting in self-respect and motherly feeling towards her child if after this accusation she had gone back to him. -Mr. O'Meagher : That is sentiment, but it is not law. His Worship :It is the law handed down to us from England, and it he had dared to say in the witness-box what he had said in the street I should have committed him for trial. All I say now is there is a case to answer. Mr. O'Meagher then conferred with his client, and on returning to Court he said that in regard to the statement alleged to be made in the street, although it, was not so gross as alleged, but as it could bear no other interpretation than that put on it, he should not call the defendant. He submitted that the two children who were with their grandmother were not destitute. He admitted that there was technical desertion of the wife, and one child. His Worship said the Act of 1877 was repealed, and the new Act came into force on the 17th of September. A copy of the Act had been sent up to him, and the clause of the Act of 1577 was incorporated and made more stringent. He had not the Act before him, and should adjourn I the case until ten o'clock next morning.
part 3
POLICE COURT. -Tuesday. [Before Mr. H. W. Nortlicroft, S M.J
Destitute Persons Act. — The charge against Christopher Hearting of deserting his wife and three children had been heard on Saturday and Monday, Mr. Brassey appearing for Mrs. Heading, and Mr. 0 Meagher for the defendant. His Worship now gave judgment. He ordered the defendant to pay 15s per week towards the support of his wife, and 7s 6d for the support of one child, ordering him to find two sureties of £25 each and himself In Jt'so bonds, for fulfilment of the order. He ordered further that the mother have custody of the three children, and that defendant pay solicitor's costs, £1 Is in each case.
the above was in the new zealand herald of oct 1894 over 3 days
do i think something happened .....probably .... mary was badly treated and james was there for support and 5 years later they got married and stayed married until henrys death in 1840
