John Edward SOUTHAM – died at his mothers residence

John Edward SOUTHAM - died at his mothers residence

John Edward SOUTHAM
Died at his mothers residence
‘Mrs Motherwell’
33 Albert Street, Linwood
April 30 1894 Aged 23 years

Block 10 Plot 29

Death notice
Tuapeka Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 4101, 12 May 1894, Page 2…

Occupation: Compositor
Place of birth: London, UK
Years in NZ: 17

Star , Issue 5245, 30 April 1895, Page 2
Southam.— ln loving memory of John Edward Southam, born Feb. 10, 1871, at 151, Barnsbury Boad, London, England, died April 30. 1894 at 33, Albert Street, Linwood, Christchurch, New Zealand. Inserted by his sorrowing mother, E.M. Motherwell, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Divorce case of John’s mother Emma Mary MOTHERWELL, formerly MARK and SOUTHAM.
Otago Witness , Issue 2014, 29 September 1892, Page 13
(Before his Honor [sic] Mr Justice Williams and a Special jury of 12.)
MARK V. MARK AND MOTHERWELL. A husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage and for £500 damages.
Mr Fraser appeared for the petitioner, Mr J. Macgregor for the respondent, and For Robert Stout for the co-respondent.
Mr Keith Ramsay was chosen foreman of the jury. Mr Fraser, in opening the case for the petitioner, said that the petitioner was Thomas Mark, a retired miner living near Lawrence, and the co-respondent, Archibald Motherwell, was also a retired miner residing near the same place.

Petitioner was lawfully married on April 28, 1882, to Emma Mary Southam, then a widow, the marriage taking place at the Dunedin registry office. Petitioner and his wife lived together at Waitahuna Gully for about Seven years, and at Lawrence for about three years, up till June 21, 1892. Two children were the issue of the marriage, and one of these a son was now alive. On the 21st,June referred to Mrs Mark left her home without just cause or excuse, and (since then she had openly cohabited with the co-respondent. Petitioner asked that the marriage be dissolved, and he also claimed £500 damages. That was what the petition set forth. After the parties had lived for some years at Waitahuna Gully the wife grew restless and seemed anxious for a change; and in consequence of her wish the petitioner purchased a small property near Lawrence and built a house upon it. Petitioner and his wife lived there afterwards for three years and they seemed to have got on very, well together. The petitioner gave his wife a high character for thriftiness. She was a good housekeeper, and a good wife in every way. Undoubtedly there were those little tiffs and those little bickerings that he (learned counsel) thought occurred in almost every household; but there were no serious disagreements. In fact, the petitioner, Mark, behaved with great liberality to his wife in many ways. He might give one instance of his liberality. When he married her she was a widow, and had been a widow seven years. She had a son 10 years of age [John, buried in this plot-Sandy], and Mark practically adopted this lad. He saw that the lad was apprenticed to a trade, and supported him during his apprenticeship, and afterwards till he became 21 years, of age. This year the respondent was anxious to pay a visit to the son, who was living at Bendigo, and the petitioner gave her the means to go. Motherwell, the co-respondent, lived close to the petitioner’s house – really, just over the way – and he was living there when Mark removed to Lawrence. The two became very friendly. They visited at each other’s houses, and Motherwell behaved himself in every way. There was nothing to occur to break the friendship, but during the last 12 months the petitioner had noticed a considerable change in his wife. She grew restless and discontented, and although anything like an open quarrel was avoided, home life was not as pleasant as if had been in the past. As he (counsel) had previously said, the Marks and Motherwell used to visit at each other’s houses, but there was nothing to arouse the petitioner’s suspicions’ in any way until the climax came very unexpectedly on June 21,1892. On that day, which was a Tuesday, Mark left home on perfectly friendly terms with his wife, returning in the evening. He then found his house empty and there was not a sign of his wife about the place. The evening wore on, but the petitioner could not understand where his wife was. She did not turn up that night nor the next day, but petitioner had no suspicion whatever of her having left with the co-respondent until he heard that Motherwell had left his house over the way. It afterwards transpired that on Tuesday Motherwell and Mrs Mark came to Dunedin, went to the Sussex Hotel, occupied the same room there, and passed as husband and wife, returning on the Thursday to Lawrence. Mrs Mark then quietly settled down in Motherwell’s house in sight of her husband’s house, and in daily sight of her child, and she had since continued her cohabitation with Motherwell. Mark ceased to have any communication with her, and on the following week after she returned to Lawrence he came to Dunedin. As he (Mr Fraser) before stated.

Mrs Mark and Motherwell left Lawrence on a Tuesday. Tuesday night found them in the Sussex Hotel, and on Wednesday they jointly consulted a firm of solicitors as to their position. [Evidently Motherwell had acted deliberately with a full knowledge of what would, result, and he got the best advice he could. It was not for him (Mr Fraser) to say what advice they got, but it was somewhat significant that the articles that were purchased on the same day after the consultation with the solicitors were a rocking chair, a sewing machine, a double bedstead, and a spring mattress. He did not know whether that was in consequence of the advice the parties got, but the articles he had mentioned were purchased. He supposed that Mrs Mark and Motherwell wanted to make the best of a bad job. There was practically no defence to the charge of adultery, but there was an answer on the part of co-respondent, which he should refer to briefly. The answer was that the petitioner connived at the adultery, and if there had been connivance that, of course, would be an answer to the petition, but he confessed that he had been at some slight pain to find out why this answer had been put in, but he had been unable to discover the slightest excuse for it. It seemed to have been put in not as a bona fide defence, but simply to let in evidence with the object of reducing the damages in the case. He (learned counsel) submitted that this was a particularly cruel defence, and that it was a cruel aggravation of the wrong petitioner had suffered.

The petitioner, who was the first witness called, gave evidence partly in support of learned counsel’s opening statement.

On being cross-examined by Mr Macgregor, witness stated that he had little tiffs with his wife sometimes. On one occasion, after they had some words, she pulled his whiskers. He then hit her with his fist, and she threw a fork at him. On another occasion there was some talk about a separation, and she told him that she would leave him only she could not get a separation without committing adultery, she also said she was not going to do that, and he replied that be would not. On one occasion, one Saturday before she left, he said to her, in fun, that he would sell her for a £5-note. He did not know what caused him to say that. There had been no row between them.

At this stage of the cross-examination witness fainted, and had to be taken out of court. On his return, after other witnesses had been examined, he stated, in reply to Mr Macgregor, that some time after he and his wife had the conversation about him belling her for a £ 5 note, they were at Motherwell’s. His wife then told Motherwell that he had said he would take £5 for her and she asked Motherwell if he would give that much. Motherwell then replied, "Oh, I would not mind giving a £5-note for you any time." They were all laughing about the matter.

The other witnesses called on behalf of petitioner were Elizabeth Kenealy, Susan M’Farfane, Wm. Hay, Constable Conn, Henry Mark, Wm. Craik, and David Cochrane.

Sir Robert Stout said the jury would see that the fight was altogether in reference to damages. In such a case the jury should look at all the surroundings and although there was power given by the act to award damages, yet he submitted that cases of such a kind ought to be discouraged by a jury. It would be seen that so far as the present case was concerned there had been no defence as to the alleged adultery, from the wife’s story they would see that during the latter years of her marriage she had lived very unhappily with her husband. The husband admitted that 12 months before the wife left him he struck her with his fist, and it was shown that their home was not a happy one from this, and from the fact that they had been talking about a separation, and that it was said that they could not get a separation unless one of them committed adultery. There was no suggestion that that was a joke. If it was a joke it was a very peculiar one. It was perfectly plain that the two parties could not live happily together, and so they wanted to be separated. Perhaps at that time neither of them thought about damages. If the petitioner did think of damages, he apparently thought that £ 5 was ample to compensate him for the loss of his wife. So far as Mr Motherwell was concerned the wife would say that there was no intimacy between him and her until quite lately. She would tell the court that she did not think that she ever talked to Motherwell until Christmas 1891. So far as Mr Mark
was concerned, he was not sorry that he could separate from his wife. The wife would swear that before she left there was a discussion about what things she should take with her. Her husband said she could take her clothes, but he objected to her taking a sewing machine. If that was so, he submitted that it was not a case for damages at all. There was no poetry nor pathos in the case, which was entirely a question of money. Mr Mark could joke about this £ 5, but why should there be any talk about a separation at all? The wife would say that they were living unhappily together. The law was that there, could be no divorce between the parties unless there was either bigamy or adultery. In this case the parties both seemed to be of that opinion, and they talked about that in order to see who should commit adultery, so that a divorce might be brought about.

Mr Fraser: Mr Mark denies that in the way you put it.

Sir Robert Stout said that whether he denied it or not he admitted that the question was talked about, and what he was opening was what the wife said. He (Sir Robert) did not say anything against Mark, but it was not a case in which he should ask for damages, and his request would not be listened to by the jury for a single instant. Mrs Mark would say also that after the talk at Motherwell’s Mark told her that she could go tomorrow for aught he would care— that he would be glad to get rid of her. She would also say that there was no laughing about the matter, when the question of selling her for a £5-note was raised at Motherwell’s.

Mr Fraser: You had better set up bargain and sale.

Sir Robert Stout said that he was doing what was much better. It was making a fool of the court to ask for damages in such a case. The respondent in her evidence stated that she and her husband lived very unhappily together. They frequently disagreed, and he struck her several times. It was understood between them that -one of them should act improperly, so as to get a divorce. That was about three months before she left her husband. Her husband told her that he might act improperly, or that she might if she wished to get a divorce. He was always agreeable to the idea of a separation, and had many times talked of selling her for £5. On one occasion, when he spoke about it to Mr Motherwell, witness said to him, “You will jib," and her husband replied that he would not. He then went to the railway station, and left her with Mr Motherwell. After she went home her husband was not there, and she waited up till 10 o’clock for him. When he came home she asked him about various people in the gully, and then said to him, “Archie will give £5 for me." Her husband replied that if she liked Archie better than him Archie could have her for all he cared, and that she could go the next day. Witness said she could not go, as her clothes were not dry. Her husband said, “Never mind the clothes." On the Tuesday morning— the day she left home— he said to the child if she left him he would have Mrs Rusbridge to keep house. Previously to her leaving home, her husband said he considered it was a bargain he had made with Archie, she left home because her husband was unkind to her. She had been ready twice before to leave home once when she had been married seven months.

On being cross-examined, witness stated that on one occasion her husband struck her with a shovel and knocked her down. On another occasion, when they had a row, witness said, “What a pity you could not sell me," and he replied, that if he could get anyone to buy her he would sell her. She asked him what he wanted for her, and he said £5. She thought that was very little. Mr Fraser You were ready to sell yourself for £5?

Witness: I was quite agreeable to it, because I was unhappy.

In reply to a further question, witness stated that she told her husband that if he took £5 he would not get a divorce. Her own common sense told her that.

His Honor said there were three issues before the jury. The first issue was, did the respondents commit adultery Then, if she did, did the petitioner connive at the offence being committed? and secondly, what amount of damages was the petitioner entitled to? As to the first issue, that was uncontradicted, although it rested with the petitioner to prove it. In order that connivance be established, it must appear that the adultery was really attributable to the conduct of the petitioner, and that the conduct of the petitioner was not merely careless or negligent, but that he intended or looked forward to adultery being committed in consequence of his conduct. All the evidence that the court had as to connivance was the evidence of the wife. It rested upon the persons who said there was connivance to prove it. If the husband’s story was true there was nothing in the nature of connivance. The only evidence as to connivance came from the guilty party an admitted adulteress— and was unsupported by any other evidence. If, however, there was connivance the petitioner was not entitled to a divorce at all, and no damages should be given. But if there was no connivance. the jury had to consider what the amount of the damages should be; and the damages should not be given as punishment for the adultery but they should be given as compensation to the husband for the loss of the wife. The jury had also to consider, in taking into consideration the amount of damages, what kind of a woman the wife was, and whether the husband and wife lived happily together. Sir R. Stout wished to explain why the co-respondent had not been called, but Mr Fraser objected while the jury were present.
His Honor: It is quite out of course for Sir Robert to explain. You may have had admirable reasons for not calling him, and the fact has been commented on by Mr Fraser.
Sir R. Stout: I was only about to ask your Honor to direct the jury on this point: that there is no suggestion that Motherwell was ever present along with the petitioner and respondent except at the interview and in reference to that interview the petitioner and respondent do not disagree as to what then occurred. Hence our not calling the co-respondent.
His Honor; There is, however, a difference between, them. The husband states that he treated the matter as a joke, while she states that he regarded it seriously.
Mr Fraser: But she introduced the matter; not the husband.
Sir R. Stout That is so.
At 3 o’clock the jury retired, and after an absence of 20 minutes they returned to court, with a verdict in favour of the petitioner, whom they awarded £50 damages.
Sir R. Stout submitted that this was a case which came within the category of "small cases" provided for in the code, according to which £35 would cover the costs, instead of the costs being taxed.
After argument, His Honor said he thought the case came within the definition of "small cases” looking at the admission of the adultery and the amount of damages awarded. A decree nisi would be granted; £50 damage, costs £35, and costs already allowed, and disbursements and witnesses’ expanses against the co-respondent.
Mr Fraser: Will your Honor give leave to apply in three months for a decree absolute?
His Honor: Yes. [2]

Archibald MOTHERWELL’s advert for selling his cottage including fruit and ornamental trees in Lawrence.…

Tuapeka Times, Volume XVI, Issue 941, 26 May 1883, Page 2
The pipes for draining the bowling green and LAwn-tennis Court have been laid oh the ground and the work of draining, etc., .will be proceeded with forthwith. -Mr Archibald Motherwell is the successful tenderer for the work.[3]

Lawrence parish marriages[4]
MOTHERWELL Archibald 57ySOUTHAM Mrs12 Jul1893
Interesting to note she chose to marry under the name of Southam and not Mark


Posted by SandyEm on 2011-12-06 09:08:24

Tagged: , 4 june 2010 , southam , motherwell , linwood cemetery’ fotlc , divorce , 1800’s

Leave a Reply