Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-01-08

Asrt for his treatment of his betW
had~snd for being absent from larg
ness lLre she was lying Ill and he
saia nSthat he must not go who
sald VINE NSriods Of time and wou
the place Wnt.him that he must ageI
informed him - commune alton Und
away for long Fey his where tt
the nurse informed these sug- fluel
Keep within telephoIiby the said yiek
SO that they might kid Smart whit
abouts at any time; THAI spite TT
| gestions and requests made him whit
doctor and nurse to the stated Sms
were absolutely ignored and lie said
thereof he continued to absen& any
self from said house and negksnar
and refused to give to his said RnI
the care and affection to which she
was entitled and begged for. r
| That this attitude Of the said Smart
toward his said wife continued prac
tically until the time of her death.
That on the 21st day of November
! 1914, your petitioner left San Fran
cisco en- route to Honolulu, aceompa
MED by the said Smart, his son Rich,
ard and various other members OF
your petitioners family and on the
same steamer Was brought the re,
mains Of said Smart's wife and their
deceased child, for the purpose of bur.
ial of the same at said Waimea; that
as your petitioner is informed and yer.
ily believes during the trip from San
Francisco to Honolulu. upon said ship,
he, the said Smart was at times In
an intoxicated condition and was dur.
ing said trip repeatedly engaged in
gambling in the smoking room of said
ship and elsewhere and the night be-
fore the ship arrived In Honolulu said
Smart was in an intoxicated condition
at the dinner table and thereafter
made an unfortunate exhibition of him.
self in the smoking room, talking in
loud voice and gambling, entirely
disregarding tthe proprieties of the &C.
casion and showing In a plain and I'M
mistakable way his lack of regard for
his dead wife and child and lack of
appreciation Of the decencies which
the situation required. - y.
mo Affection for Child -
That during the period of time when
your petitioner was with her daughter
and her daughters said husband and
child, the said Smart evinced mo- af.
lection for the said child, such lack
OF affection being so evident that
Smart's own sister stated to Smart's
wife In your petitioners presence that
1t was perfectly terrible the way Gail.
lard treated Richard, that he never
took him up or played with him or
paid any attention to him, to which
statement, made by Smart's sister as
aforesaid, Smart's wife replied as fol.
lows: He has never been any diff
ferent." The foregoing conversation
overheard by your petitioner as afore.
said was the first real knowledge she
had OF Smart's absolute indifference
to the child and disregard of its in.
terests. -. ~ i i.
That during the said trip across the
continent and thereafter up to the time
of his wife's death in San Francisco
aforesaid, the said Smart paid no at.
tention to his said child, Richard
Smart, his lack of affection for said
child being so manifest that others
spoke to his wife relative thereto and
she In her turn spoke to him saying
he did not seem to love the child.
= That your petitioner was informed
by her said daughter that the said
Smart never spoke to said child ex.
cept to scold 1t. .s..s.,.,.> :. u
That 1t was manifest from the atti.'
tude of the child toward his father,
that 1t feared and had no affection for
him.
Abuse Of Child Claimed.
That while your petitioner was in
Honolulu, after her arrival from San
Francisco. with said Smart and said
infant, as she is informed and verify
believes, the said Smart at one time
while at the residence of friend in
Honolulu, slapped the said child about
the head and on the face to such an
extent that marks were left upon the
child's face which marks your petit
toner saw end this upon child only
about Is months, old.
That as your petitioner is informed
and verify believes, the morning fol-
lowing the funeral of his said wife
and child, he, the said Smart, took
said Richard Smart in its baby car
rage out of the grounds surrounding
the residence at which your petitioner
was living and from which said fu.
neral had been held, into an open pas.
ture near said house in which were
cattle more or less wild and dangerous
TO said child; that one John Jones and
one Keao "a Hawaiiap(, as petitioner
is informed and verify believes, see
ing where the said Smart was going
with said child, protested against his
going into said pasture and told him
was dangerous for him so to do, but
that said Smart continued to take said
child into the said pasture against the
protests of said Jones and Keao and
at the risk of said child's life; that
ser the said Smart for reasons
. 70 your petitioner, took said