Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

3 corrections, most recently by Webby - Show corrections

A TASMANIAN ROMANCE.

A COURTSHIP AND WEDDING

IN FOUR DAYS. .

AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

FATHER AGAINST CHILDREN.

Some extraordinary evidence was given before the Chief Justice in the   Supreme Court, Melbourne, last week, when His Honor was called upon to investigate a story told by an old man   named Robert Zelby. The matter came before the Court in the form of an action brought by the Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Limited, as trustees of the will of Henry Barnett, deceased, against   Mary Johnson and six other children of Robert Zelby, who claimed to be   beneficiaries under the will. The testator,     who was a dealer, residing in Stephen street, Melbourne, died in June, 1880, and bequeathed his property to his widow for life, and afterwards to the legitimate children of his brother in   law, Robert Zelby. The latter was   married to Bridget Lyons in 1870,and the

seven children named as the defendant's   were born of that marriage. He now   alleges that he had been previously married to one Margaret Kearns, in       Tasmania, on December 20, 1852, and that this woman was living at the date of his second marriage. The Court was therefore asked to determine whether there had been any and what   legitimate children of Robert Zelby, and to declare all rights in regard to the bequest contained in the will. The   estate is now valued at about £600  

Bridget Zelby, of Ross street, Rich- mond, nurse, gave evidence that she     was married to Robert Zelby at Fitzroy     in 1870, but during the last seven   years she had lived apart from him.         He had been in gaol on several     occasions, once for illusing her. Since   the death of his sister, Mrs Ann   Barnett, she had been receiving certain interest from the estate on   her childrens behalf. It was not until after she had refused to live with him that he said he had been pre- viously married. He was under the influence of drink at the time, and he subsequently denied that there was any

truth in what he had said.  

Robert Zelby, who hobbled into court, leaning heavily on a stout stick, said he formerly worked as a cutler, but was now residing in the Immigrants' Home. He first came to Victoria from Tasmania in 1851. It was in 1841 that he landed in Hobart from England.

Under cross-examination, he said that he was married in Tasmania, at Sorell, in 1852, to Margaret Kearns, He lived with her for about eight months, and then left her to come to Victoria. About 16 years ago he saw     her in Elizabeth-street, Hobart, but did not speak to her. There was one child by that marriage. He married Bridget Lyons in Victoria in 1870, and had a number of children by her.    

In this second marr¡age certificate he   was described as a bachelor, as he wanted to hide his past, and try and earn honest living. He was bom in   1818 or 1819, but he and his wife made up their ages to suit themselves, for entry in certificate. He came out to Tasmania as a convict. Margaret Kearns was 19 when he married   her. Subsequently he " left her." Once before that he was reported to have been killed by the natives in New Zealand, and his sisters and brothers and the whole lot of them went into mourning for him. When he returned to Tasmania about 16 years ago he heard that his alleged first wife had gone away with some one else a man named Jockey on the Huon

River.

Supposing that his marriage with Bridget Lyons was declared invalid, the children of that marriage would be declared to be illegitimate. He hoped he would get a share of this estate, as much as would help to keep him comfortable for the rest ot his days. He had promised to give a Mr. Tom Lloyd 20 per cent of what he got if he found out that his, Zelby's, wife and children in Tasmania were dead or alive. He, Zelby, knew that for some years   after his sister died, in 1892, the interest from the estate was paid to his wife for his children. And it was not till August, 1897, that he put forward his present claim.

Margaret Littlejohn, an aged women,   stated, that in December, 1852, she was married at Sorell, Tasmania, to a man named Robert Zelby. She was then 14 years of age. Her maiden name was Margaret Kearns. She had only known Zelby for three or four days when she married him. He represented that he lived in Victoria,     and had plenty of money. After living with her for four months he went to Victoria, and returned about six months after the marriage. He   lived with her for about one month more, and then cleared out, and she had never, seen him since. There was a child born of the marriage, but it died in infancy. About nine or ten years after the marriage she heard that Zelby was dead, and subsequently she married a man named James Littlejohn, and had 12 children by him, Little-   john died about four years ago. It was untrue that she had ever lived with a man named Jockey. She met Zelby first, before she married him, at the     door of a public-house. Three or four days after that she married him. She did not recognise Zelby, now in court, as the man she married at Sorell in 1852.      

Witness then left the box, and avoided the old man, who wished her   to sit by his side.  

Counsel submitted that Zelby's story was wholly un-corroborated, and that he was unworthy of belief. There was no satisfactory proof of his identity with the man,who in 1852 married Margaret   Kearns at Sorell.

The Chief Justice said Zelby ap- peared to have been a thoroughly   disreputable person from his earliest years, and there was no family in the country whose legitimacy might not be upset by rascals of his class if they were to be believed. He had not sworn that the witness Littlejohn was the woman whom he said he first married. She herself was unable, to recognise him as the man she married   in 1852, and she also contradicted him on several points. The court could not accept such a man's uncorroborated evidence. It was wholly unsupported, and therefore he would find that Zelby's, marriage with Bridget Lyons was not     shown to have been illegal, and that the children of that marriage were legitimate and entitled to the devise under the will. He would allow the costs of the plaintiff trustees company and those of Mr.Nankivell out of the estate, as it was the wish of the child- ren that this should he done; but he would allow the Crown to abide its own costs. The costs of the defendant children would, of course, come out of  

the estate.  

Oi.d-age Pensions.-Although, accord- ing to the Premier (writes the Dunedin correspondent of the Arc/us), every de- spatch ib being made to bring the Old Age Pensions Act into operation in New Zea land, it will be some time yet before pen- sions are, paid. The regulations which are being framed have first to be gazetted. Then each claimant has to till in a form with proofs to show that he or she has resided in the'colony for not less, than 25 j cars ; lues not for the past 12 yeah sen ed' a term of imprisonment nor deserted wile or husband ; that lie or she is of good moral diameter; that the net capital value of accumulated property does n>t amount to Ï270 or upwards; that he oi fho has not directly or indirectly deprived himself oi herself of property oi income ;and that the animal income does not cxcecil £52 or up- wards. Then the' claimant has to appear in court on a «late appointed to prov e the claim. To what extent the pensions will íelievo the disbursement on charitable aid is not know n, In Dunedin it is found that, so far us age is conctrneil, 220 persons in receipt of out-door relief al > over 65 years of age. ^ AVhether they have the »ther necessary qualifications has not yet been ascertained. , " ' ' " '

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down