Harvey, John

Christ Church''s Web Site
5 HARVEY John

Evening Post 17 August 1887
RUSH V. RUSH
This was a petition by Julia Kate Rush for a judicial separation on the ground of the cruelty of her husband, Alphonsus Rush.
Mr. A. de D. Brandon appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Fitzherbert for the respondent
All witnesses with the exception of the petitioner and respondent were ordered out of Court.
Mr. Brandon asked that the respondent should also be ordered out.
Mr. Fitzherbert objected, and his Honour upheld the objection. The petitioner deposed that she was married to the respondent on the 8th May, 1882, at the Lower Hutt. After the marriage he quarrelled with her. After completing a honeymoon trip in the Wairarapa, she went to live with her mother at the Taita until a house her husband, a farmer, was building at the Taita was finished, while she was staying with her parents, and within a fortnight of the marriage, he abused her. This was as they were driving into Wellington. A couple of weeks after that there was a quarrel because there was no likelihood of there being an issue of the marriage. For some time after this she and her husband did not speak. His behaviour did not improve very much after that. He, however, kept silent for two or three weeks, and again he abused her, calling her a barren pig. She had known her husband for twelve months before marriage. They had been neighbours at the Taita. About a year after marriage, and when they got into the new house, they had a quarrel because she contradicted him, and he throw her down, but did not strike her. He had a bad temper, and was in the habit of telling lies. She recollected visiting Palmerston North on a visit to his parents, who had taken up their residence there. She returned home in a fortnight, and there was another quarrel. He did not knock her about, but was sulky with her. This was in the early part of 1885. In May of that year they had a dispute as to the quantity of liquid a certain measure could hold, and he threw her down and bruised her. He said that he would kill her. She recollected the opening of the Wellington and Manawata Railway. On that day she went to Palmerston to visit his people. She returned on the following Wednesday, and he met her at the Lower Hutt Railway Station. After she had got into the trap, he asked her how she had enjoyed herself, and she replied "Pretty well." He then said, "Are you sure ?" and she replied that if she had been better treated by his people she would have enjoyed herself much better. He then threatened to throw her out of the trap, and said that she did not care for him or his people When they got to the gate of the farm, they had a scrimmage. He said that she should not go home with him. She recollected the 19th of January last. On that day he accused her of helping his brother-in-law to buy the place, so that he might be ousted. She told him that it was all imagination. McDowell was the brother-in-law''s name. McDowell was now living in Palmerston. When she told him that it was all imagination, he ordered her inside the house, but she refused, and he then pushed her into the house. He dragged her across the kitchen, but she took hold of him and made him sit down, and tell her what he was cross about. He then jumped up and threw her against the wall. He then placed her across his knee, having previously sat down, and put one hand on her throat. On the 3rd of February he had a dispute with the hired boy, Harvey, and, leaving the latter alone, he turned on her. He threw her over a chair. She rose, and again he threw her down, this time nearly stunning her. She was bruised on the nose and on the body, and she was hardly able to do any work for some time. While he was ill-treating her he threatened to kill her. She threatened to leave him, and he said she could go. She came in to town and saw Mr. Wardell, R.M., who advised her to go back, take a witness, and ask her husband whether he would agree to a separation. She went back, and in the presence of her brother, Arthur Pyke (sic), asked her husband whether he would agree to a separation. He said he would decline to go in for a separation. He told her to take her things and leave the house. She packed up her things, but did not leave the house until the following morning. The young man Harvey was in the house from the Thursday to the Monday before she left, and her mother was there on the Monday night. On the Friday and Saturday nights preceding her departure she slept on the sofa.
By Mr. Fitzherbert — She did not tell Mr. John Taylor, before she was married, that she hated Rush, and was only going to marry him to please her mother. She also knew Mr. Henry McKenzie, brother-in-law of Mr. Taylor. She did not tell Mr. McKenzie that she hated Rush, and did not care about marrying him. She met Mr. McKenzie at the house of Mr. Taylor, where she had stayed for some time. Mrs. Taylor never spoke to her about her familiarities with Mr. McKenzie. During the time she was staying at her mother''s house, after the marriage, he only visited her once. She co-habited with her husband during the time she was in the house. He did not complain about being deprived of his marital rights during the time she was living with her parents. After her marriage she visited Dr. Collins, who told her that she could not bear children until an operation had been performed. She did not refuse to have the operation performed. She said that she was willing an operation should be performed. The reason the operation did not take place was because her husband could not spare the amount, about £5. She recollected a concert and dance at the Hutt. She asked her husband whether he was going, and he said he was too tired. This was on the 19th of last January. It was not true that he pushed her inside so that he might get into the house. On the 3rd of February, 1886, her husband asked the boy Harvey why he had allowed a horse to break some harness. Harvey replied that he could not prevent the damage, as he was looking after another horse at the time. Some words ensued between Harvey and Rush, and her husband called the boy a liar. It was not a fact that the boy used bad language to her husband on that occasion. When her husband told Harvey to leave the farm she did not say she would go too. She could not say her things and Harvey''s things were placed on the cart at the same time. Her husband accused her, but wrongfully, of being in the dairy without lights, and whispering to Harvey. This was just before she left for good. When she went to Palmerston she knew that Harvey was there on a holiday. Mr. Rush, senr., had brought young Harvey up from childhood, and when she was in Palmerston she and he lived in her husband''s house. The last row with her husband was not on account of jealousy, but it arose through Harvey. The house provided by her husband was a nice one, but it was not furnished as it ought to be. It was comfortable enough. There was a Mignon piano in the house. She had plenty to eat and drink, but her husband did not provide her with sufficient wearing apparel. On the 25th of last February she went down from her mother''s house and had a talk and a walk with her husband. They again quarrelled. He said that he considered it was a disgrace she should leave him. If Harvey had remained on the farm she would not have gone back. She had not been induced by her mother or anyone else to keep away from her husband. He was always kind to children, but he had been very unkind to her.
Elizabeth Pyke, wife of George Pyke, farmer, at the Taita, and mother of the petitioner, deposed that she lived close to where Rush, the respondent, had resided. Rush had not been at all kind to her daughter. On the 19th of last January, she saw him throw his wife backward on the scullery floor and drag her through the kitchen into the front passage, where he placed her across his knee and nearly choked her. Witness remonstrated, and her daughter then got up and staggered against the wall. He then pushed her (witness'' daughter) about. Witness found bruises on her daughter''s body, and one of the eyes was injured. Rush frequently accused her daughter of doing wrong things. Whenever his wife came into town he accused her of going in for the purpose of seeing men, and whenever she went to a dance he said that she misconducted herself. So far as witness knew, her daughter had always conducted herself properly. Her daughter was not a woman of a nagging disposition.
By Mr. Fitzherbert — The arrangement made before the marriage was that the wife should live with witness. So far as witness was aware, Rush did not want his wife to live in another house while the new one he was building was being erected. Her daughter was a good tempered woman. Witness believed her daughter was not averse to being married to Rush. Witness did not visit her son-in-law''s house frequently, until some time after the marriage. For three years before the couple separated she used to visit them every day. It was not a fact that witness was now keeping the couple apart. She did not consider Rush a kind man. When the young man Harvey left, she noticed that his things and her daughter''s were on the cart at the same time, and she prevailed upon her daughter to take her things off the vehicle.
John Harvey, farm labourer, deposed that he was in Rush''s employ for about two years, and previous to that was in the service of Mr. Rush, senior. On the night of 19th February last he and Rush had a row about a horse that had broken away. Rush said that he had called him "a b - liar." Witness denied this, and then Rush said he was a liar. Mrs. Rush made a remark while they were having the altercation, and Rush shoved her down several times. She was at last stunned, and witness picked her up. While she was lying on the sofa Rush offered to fight the both of them. Witness had had a row once before, but would not leave because he could not get his money. He slept in the house He always considered that Rush spoke roughly to his wife. Sometimes he told her to "go to the devil."
By Mr. Fitzherbert — Witness was only 11 or 12 when he went to live with Mr. Rush, sen., and he was now 21. He recollected going up to Palmerston North. He believed he told Mrs. Rush that he was going up to that town. He did not receive a letter from her while he was in Palmerston. He met her on the platform, and learning that she was going to stay at Mr. Rush, sen.''s, house he took her up there. He did not know that she was going up to Palmerston. He was not in the garden with her for more than an hour. He was not in her company for more than two hours the whole of the first day. The next day he went with her for a walk in the country. He stayed in Palmerston for six or seven weeks, and then returned to Mr. Rush, junr., at the Taita. On the night of the last row he did not recollect wiping his hands on Mrs. Rush''s apron. He would swear that he did not call Rush a b - liar. Rush did not say that he would not have him in the dairy with his wife in the dark. Rush said he would not have him on the premises any longer, and witness said he would go. He had seen Rush knock his wife down on two or three different occasions. Rush was a good master. Witness believed Mrs. Rush had a comfortable home, and was at liberty to go in and out when she pleased. Mrs. Rush had as good a temper as most women.
Re-examined — Witness when in Rush''s service was not employed about the house to any extent. This closed the petitioner''s case. [Left sitting.]

Evening Post 18 August 1887
Divorce Court.
YESTERDAY.
(Before the Chief Justice.)
RUSH V. RUSH.
This case in which the wife prayed for a judicial separation, on the ground of cruelty, was concluded at 4.30
John Harvey was recalled by Mr. Fitzherbert after the luncheon hour adjournment, and deposed that, so far as he knew, Mrs. Rush slept with her husband for the four nights prior to the day he left.
By the Court - It was quite possible she slept on the sofa by herself for the four nights in question.
Mr. Fitzherbert having opened the case for the respondent, called Alphonsus Rush, who deposed that he had been farming at the Taita He was now living at Palmerston North. After coming from Wairarapa on their honeymoon his wife went to live at her parents, and after being there a few days she came into Wellington and stayed, much against his will, with a Mrs. John Taylor. All that time he was denied connubial rights. After a while he got permission from Mrs. Pyke for his wife to leave Mrs. Taylor''s and live with him. When they came back from Wairarapa he wanted her to live in a house until the premises then in course of erection were finished, but she asked to be allowed to stay with her parents, and he agreed. Instead, however, of staving at her parents house she came into Wellington and stayed with Mrs. John Taylor. There had been several tiffs between them. She frequently misunderstood him, and getting into a rage would attempt to scratch him. He was in consequence obliged to hold her away from him. On the 19th of January last, she wanted him to go to a dance at the Lower Hutt, but he said he could not go, as he was too tired, having been hay-making all the day. She was annoyed at his refusal. He pushed her down, as she was standing in the doorway, and she caught hold of his coat and tore it. She afterwards repaired it, saying she was sorry, for what she had done. It was not true that he had ever taken her across his knee. On the 3rd of February, the young man Harvey proposed to take Mrs. Rush to the races. Witness objected at breakfast time. Later on in the day he saw Harvey wipe his hands on Mrs. Rush''s apron. This annoyed him very much. Again, at night time he heard them whispering in the dairy. There were no lights in the dairy. In the evening he and Harvey had some words about a horse, and Harvey called him "a b _ liar." Mrs. Rush interfered and witness was obliged to catch hold of her hands to prevent her from scratching him. She might have fallen over a chair. He might have pushed her down. He did not knock her down, and she was not stunned. It was a horrible lie to say that she was stunned. Mrs. Rush dared witness to dismiss Harvey. The three of them had supper after the row on Thursday. At that time Harvey said that if witness would pay him £8 10s, wages due, he would leave at once. Witness offered him a horse in payment. Harvey refused, and witness was obliged to borrow money from Mr. Sidey. When witness told him on the following Monday that he was square with Harvey, she said that she would leave the house. He was very much surprised to find her''s and Harvey''s things on Mrs. Pyke''s trap. She did not, however, leave until the following morning. Witness and his wife slept together on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. She would not cohabit with him on Monday night — the night Harvey left. A young man named Hayward visited the house on Sunday night, and Harvey, Hayward, witness and his wife passed a sociable evening together. Mrs. Pyke also came down on the Sunday afternoon and took her daughter out for a drive in his light trap. About three weeks after this Mrs. Pyke wrote and asked him to go up to her house. Witness did not go, but his father went instead. He told his father that if his wife would come back he would be glad. Subsequently his wife came down, and they had a long talk in his garden. He told her it was a sad affair about her leaving, and she said it was. She said she was sorry for what had occurred, She went in and played the piano and stayed to tea. Everyone was jolly, in fact they were all "up a tree." After tea he went down to milk the cows, and she came down and kissed him and said she was going back to her mother''s. Before this, on the same day, and when in the garden, she condoned the offence. He would say that, if the words were the last he uttered on earth. She offered to return, but he would not pay Mr. Brandon''s costs. There had been some little difficulty between them respecting the want of issue.
His Honour asked the witness whether he could not come to some arrangement with his wife?
The witness said he had not pressed the present case. He had not sufficient grounds for divorce. Then there was the objection that he belonged to the Catholic Church, and could not be married again if he was divorced.
Mr. Brandon said that the real question between the parties was one of maintenance. Several efforts had been made to reconcile the parties, but Mrs. Bush had always been averse to going back to live with her husband.
The witness said that he objected to pay for a woman who would not live with him, and who had borne him no children.
The witness, cross-examined by Mr. Brandon, said that he never threatened to throw her out of the trap as they were driving from the railway on her return from Palmerston. He never touched her on that occasion. He had not a bad temper. Two phrenologists had told him that he had a very good temper. (Laughter.) He had tried to be as kind as possible to his wife. When he borrowed the money from Mr. Sidey to pay Harvey his wages he had not then instructed Mr. Sidey to sell his furniture. He did not instruct Mr. Sidey to sell the goods until after he had exhausted every means to get his wife back.
Mr. Fitzherbert announced that he would call four or five more witnesses if the Court thought further evidence was necessary.
His Honour said there was nothing to show that the wife''s actions on the Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday preceding her departure had not been voluntary on her part.
Mr. Brandon said he was not in a position to carry the matter any further.
His Honour dismissed the petition on the ground that there had been condonation. In doing so he said that, so far as the case had gone, there was not the slightest suspicion of misconduct against the wife as in connection with the young man Harvey. The case was an unfortunate one, and he hoped that means would be found to bring about a reconciliation.
It was agreed that the question of costs should be argued in Chambers.


Hutt Valley Cemetery Record John Harvey, Date: 5/6/1891, Christ Church Anglican, Taita, Burial & Monumental Inscriptions, Reference: 9

Evening Post 5 June 1891
Harvey - On the 5th June, 1891, at the Taita, John Harvey, aged 26 years.
-
Funeral Notice
The Friends of the late John Harvey are respectfully invited to attend his Funeral, which will leave the residence of Mr. George Pike, Taita, on Sunday, 7th of June, at 3 30 p.m.
John Edwards,
Undertaker
-
Evening Post 6 June 1891
U.A.O.D.
Star of New Zealand Lodge
Members of the above Lodge are requested to meet at Bro. G. Pike''s residence, Taita, on Sunday, the 7th of June, 1891, to attend the Funeral of our late Bro. John Harvey, which will leave for the Taita Cemetery at 3 p.m.
Visting brethren invited.
F. Wallace,
Secretary

-
unsure if related to John Harvey have put under own RIN

Death Details
1877/4610, Mary Anne Harvey, Aged: 37Y - Date of Death 5/7/1877 from Death Registration

Hutt Valley Cemetery Record Mary Ann (sic) Harvey, Date: 5/7/1877, Christ Church Anglican, Taita, Burial Record

could not see a death notice in online searchable newspapers