Preece Family Tree

Families

Source References

1. Hawke's Bay Herald
   1. • Page: Vol 30, Issue 9989, Page 3
      • Citation:

        HASLETT V. HASLETT.

        A REMARKABLE CASE.

        Mr Turnbull, S.M., yesterday had before him the case of Haslett v. Haslett, a suit on the part of the wife against her husband for maintenance. Mr Cornford appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir William Wasbeneys for the defendant.

        Mr Cornford, in opening the case, read a number of letters from the defendant to plaintiff. In these he used strong language, and expressed pleasure at her leaving him. In later letters he told her that she was not legally married to him, and he enclosed a paper for her signature, in which she was made to say that she was aware that the marriage was not valid, and that she consented to him marrying another girl. He added that he would shortly become a father, and he wanted to marry the girl to legitimise the offspring, but her parents would not agree to the marriage unless the plaintiff signed the paper. She refused to sign, and defendant had carried out a threat in one of the letters that he would not give her any more money unless she signed the document, while promising to continue to support her if she signed.

        Emily Haslett deposed that her maiden name was Emily Short. She was married at Waitatuna, near Raglan, on February 2nd, 1880, by the Rev. Mr Schnakenberg. She left her husband on September 26th last because he told her to go, saying he would make her or lead her the life of a dog and would murder her. He sent a dray to take her and her things away. She went to Wairoa. There had been previous unpleasantness, because he had brought a girl into the house and witness had had a miserable life since that. She had £2 when she went away, out of which she had to pay her passage, leaving her 18s when she landed. She lived with Mrs Barrett, the arrangement being that she was to pay in advance four shillings a week for two rooms. Witness had to find her own food. Her husband promised to pay her 15s a week. Shortly afterwards she had only one room at 3s a week. Altogether, including the £2, she had £8 10s from her husband. After their marriage they lived at various places in Auckland and Hawke's Bay. Once before, when they lived at Hampden, he broke up the home, and they went to live at Mrs Thompson's, in Napier. In consequence of her husband's relations with Mrs Thompson she left him and went to Waipawa. When she was at the Wairoa she got the letter asking her to sign a declaration that she was not married, and afterwards he visited her and told her she must write out the paper, he would make her. She got out of the room and went to Mrs Barrett, who went and remonstrated with him for frightening witness. That was because she screamed when he tried to prevent her leaving the room. She said she would return to Napier, but he threatened to throw her overboard on the way, and said if she landed he would have her arrested.

        In cross-examination witness said before her marriage she was a governess and he was on a station. He said he was 21 years of age. He was not a youth of 17 or 18.

        Mr Cornford objected that evidence as to the validity of the marriage could not be given in these proceedings. That was a matter for the Supreme Court.

        Sir W. Wasteneys said that was not his object. He intended to show that the defendant when a mere youth was invelgled into a marriage with a woman of 40.

        Cross-examination continued: Witness was only 22 at the time of the marriage. She did not tell him she was 38 then. The certificate was taken out by defendant at Hamilton. Waitatuna was between Raglan and Hamilton. She did not know whether it was in the Raglan district.

        Mr Cornford again objected.

        Sir W. Wasteneys said he intended to show that the Registrar who issued the certificate was in collusion with the parties. The Act quoted by Mr Cornford evidently meant that no irregularity in a proper certificate should be pleaded. But he contended that that only referred to a certificate regularly taken out, and not to an irregular certificate, which the Registrar had no right to issue.

        His Worship said he must take the certificate as prima facie evidence. How did Sir W. Wasteneys propose to prove that Waitatuna was not in the Hamilton district?

        Sir W. Wasteneys said he would prove it by the evidence of the defendent.

        His Worship said evidence of boundaries must be produced.

        Sir William said that was impossible.

        Cross-examination continued: Mr Schnackenberg was on his way to Auckland. He said if they liked he would marry them when he came back, but defendant insisted on the ceremony going on then. Mr Schnackenberg said that because he was in a hurry to get to Auckland, not because of any illegality. He said Waitatuna was just half way between Raglan and Hamilton. She did not know the distance between Raglan and Hamilton. It might be 36 miles. She could not say whether Waitatuna was only five miles from Hamilton. She lived with her husband for years, and never had any quarrel until the affair with Mrs Thompson about three years ago. Mrs Thompson then lived in Hooper's-lane, but she had since left Napier. After she had been a year at Waipawa she rejoined her husband, and they lived at Wairoa and Petane before they went to the Western Spit. She saw misconduct between Mrs Thompson and her husband, but witness could not leave then, as Mrs Thompson had stolen her money. Mr Oldham, the sheep inspector, was lodging in the house, and he was aware of the disturbance and its cause. After she rejoined her husband they lived peaceably until the girl alluded to in her husband's letters came. Her name was Georgina James. She came about three months before witness left. Her husband pretended to take her to her sister at Te Haroto, but he kept her at a fruit shop until witness left, when she returned to the defendant's house, where she gave birth to a child, of which she believed Edward Oldham was the father. That was in December. In March her husband wrote saying he was "about to become a father shortly," and he desired to marry the girl. She still said the girl was Georgina James.

        His Worship asked what difference it made what girl it was?

        Sir William replied that it was another girl the father referred to, and what had happened with her was after the plaintiff left her husband, and could not be pleaded as justification for her leaving.

        Cross-examination continued: Mrs Oldham, the girl's sister, tried to get her away from defendant after witness left, but she refused to go. From the time she came to the house her husband "carried on" with her and made witness's life miserable. She was not of a jealous disposition. Defendant knocked her down and kicked her in the presence of the girl. He had never refused a request for money until three weeks ago. She did not tell people that she would not lower herself by taking his money. He had never pressed money on her, which she refused, nor had he ever offered to buy her a piano so that she might maintain herself by teaching music. When he visited her at Wairoa he did not ask witness to return and live with him. He went after the girl James, but her mother would not let her go. He gave witness 10s, but took it back when she said she would go to Napier. He also took from Mrs Barrett a month's rent which he had paid. He asked whether witness owed any tradesmen's bills, to which she replied in the negative. She did not threaten to go to Napier to take proceedings, and it was not after that he used the threats. She had no means of her own, but Edward Oldham paid her £3 out of £5 15s he owed defendant. She had no authority to receive the money. That was exclusive of the £8 10s received from defendant, making £11 10s she had had. Defendant at the Wairo did not put before her a document to sign, but told her to write it out, and she screamed because she thought he would make her write it.

        Re-examined: Witness could not have come to Napier without the £3 she got from Oldham. She took no part in the legal steps antecedent to marriage, defendant getting the necessary documents.

        Sir W. Wasteneys intimated that his defence was that the marriage was invalid, as the certificate was issued by the Registrar at Hamilton, while Waitatuna was in the Raglan district. He would prove by a Gazette notice that the southern boundary of the Hamilton district was the Waitatuna river, whereas the marriage took place south of that river.

        Mr Cornford argued that, even assuming that that point could be raised, which he disputes, the original certificate must be produced. What had been put in was only a copy of the marriage certificate from the Registrar's books.

        Sir William contended that if it were absolutely necessary to produce the Registrar's certificate many cases of invalid marriages could never be proved.

        Mr Turnbull said the document before him was prima facie evidence that the marriage was legal. How did the defence propose to rebut it?

        Sir William Wasteneys: By the evidence of the defendant.

        His Worship said documentary evidence could not be upset on oral evidence. He should rule that the marriage was a legal one in the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary.

        Abraham Haslett deposed that he kept a boarding-house at the Western Spit. His boarders worked at the freezing works, and left him when the works were closed. He had no assistance, doing all the work himself. He was now 33, and was between 18 and 19 at the time of the marriage. Plaintiff told him to put her age down at 22, but her mother told him she was between 30 and 40. When he told her that she did not deny it, but said if she was a hundred she was too good for him. It was plaintiff who told him to get the certificate at Hamilton, so that the people of Raglan should know nothing about it. She also told him to say he was 21, or he would not get the certificate. It was a good day's ride from Raglan to Hamilton - he believed about 36 miles - but the house where the marriage ceremony was performed was only five miles from Raglan, and south of the Waitatuna river. The Registrar at Hamilton told him he could not give a certificate authorising a marriage at Raglan.

        Mr Cornford urged that that was not evidence, unless it could be shown that the plaintiff knew of the irregularity, and was a consenting party.

        After some further argument his Worship intimated that he must take the copy of the register put in as prima facie evidence of a valid marriage. If the defence contended that the marriage took place on a false certificate that certificate must be produced.

        Examination continued: His wife used from the first to tell him she was too good for him, as she was descended from nobles. There was absolutely no truth in her statements as to what she saw at Mrs Thompson's. She was always making accusations against him. When she left him to go to Waipawa there was no special quarrel, but his wife's jealousy had always made the marriage unhappy. The girl James was taken in by witness at the request of Mr Oldham. He did not tell plaintiff of her condition, as Mr Oldham said it would be best for her to tell Mrs Haslett. Plaintiff seemed very fond of her at first. At witness's suggestion Mrs Oldham, sister of the girl, came and stopped with her until she was confined. It was not denied that Oldham was the father. There was no dispute or quarrel whatsoever between plaintiff and witness about the girl. Plaintiff went to the Wairoa at her own request and he gave her a bag of sugar and 10lb of tea. He did not order her to leave nor threaten her in any way. There was no quarrel, except that plaintiff was jealous and said she would leave him. She was jealous about everyone. It was untruethat he had knocked her down and kicked her in the presence of James. He had never struck her in his life. He always sent her money to the Wairoa when she arked for it. He ceased sending it because she said her pride would not allow her to take it. He went to the Wairo to induce her to return to him. He paid the rent due, 12s, and gave plaintiff 10s, which she threw at him. He told Mrs Barrett he would pay what she spent on plaintiff as she would not take money from him. He also offered to buy her a piano. Afterwards plaintiff followed him and said she was going to Napier to see a lawyer and "show him up" with the money he had given her and Mrs Barrett. It was when he offered her the piano that she screamed. He did not try to induce her to write a document saying she was not married, nor did he attempt to stop her leaving the room. Witness recently issued a summons against Oldham to recover expenses in connection with the girl James, and he never heard of these proceedings until then. Witness wrote the letters produced because of the character of the letters he received from her. He sent the letters back to her.

        To Mr Turnbull: He asked his wife to return to him because he had not enough money to keep her apar.

        Examination continued: He did not make £1 a week out of his boarders; he had only a "shanty."

        Cross-examined by Mr Cornford: He asked plaintiff to take 40lb of sugar, and supposed she took that and the tea. The young woman to whom he alluded in the letter to his wife as one he desired to marry was the girl Georgina James, whom Oldham had brought to the house. He had corresponded with her mother, but he forgot what it was about. [Letter produced.] He wrote that lett.r In it he said he wanted Georgina to come to him, as people would soon be noticing the alteration in her figure. He invited the mother to accompany her, offering to pay all expenses and promising to make her "fine and comfortable." He also referred to plaintiff in the letter as "Miss Short."

        His Worship: I am quite satisfied that these two people are husband and wife, and the husband ought to maintain her. She seems to be a weakly woman, not able to do much for herself, so I shall give her the full amount allowed by the Act, £1 a week.

        Defendant: It is impossible for me to pay it.

        On the application of Mr Cornford, his Worship directed that the money should be paid to the clerk of the Court. He also allowed £1 1s in solicitor's fee.

        Sir William Wasteneys intimated that the proceedings would be taken to the Supreme Court, so that he would like his Worship to state his grounds for refusing to hear evidence as to the validity of the marriage.

        His Worship: Having this certificate of the Registrar of Marriages, that the marriage was solmenised by an officiating minister, who certified that the certificate required by the Act had been delivered to him before the ceremony, and that all formalities required by the Act had been gone through, in the absence of the production of the original certificate I refuse to take any oral evidence contradicting it.

2. New Zealand BDM Registers
   1. • Page: Marriage - Abraham Haslett / Emily Susanna Shortt (1880/1182)