Sho be lieved that the child was removed, not for tho purpose of educating him, but in order to cause her armoyaijce, While the infant was with Kent in CJufetduwh

she was informed that he was totally neglected was in the most indigent and miserable condi tion, and was treated by Kent and the woman with whom he resided with the utmost bar barity. She had requested his aunt to take him away from his father and to send him to her at Timaru. This was done, and when the child arrived he was in the most loathsome con dition. The infant had always evinced the greatest fear of Kent, though the state of his health was such that it was necessary to treat him with the greatest care and tenderness. She believed that if he -were given up to his father the result would be that he would die from neglect or grow up to be a vagrant. These allegations of course Kent denied. On the other side, he stated that when he left his wife and family he left them in a four roomed cottage, well furnished, with two acres of land, part of which was in cultivation as a market garden, six tons of h.iy, six head of cattle, two goats, and a quantity of poultry. His two sons, who were living with his wife, were receiving wages in the aggregate over 30.s per week, and he hadneverbeenapplied to for assistance, during his absence. He al«o believed tho child to be very fond of him, and that if not handed over to his custody he would suffer physically aiid morally. Several witnesses supported one or other of the disputants, but the judge considered that there was nothing in the affidavits filed by Mrs Kent to show a prima facie case for retaining the custody of the child, whereupon he was handed over to the father. And now conies the worst part of the whole proceedings. The father and son walked out of Court hand in hand, but in a second afterwards the boy made a clean bolt and has never since been heard of. 