THE COCKTAIL OF MATRIMONIAL BLISS

Magistrate Supplies A Recipe —Kindness, Consideration And A Little More Common-sense

WIFE SAYS PRITCHARD'S BRAND WAS NOT TRUE TO >LABES

(From "NJS. Truth's" Hastings Representative.)

The legal spotlight was turned upon the matrimonial affairs of a well-known Hastings family at last week's sitting of the local Magistrate's Court, when Althea Maud Pritchard asked Magistrate Mowlem to I grant her a separation and maintenance order against her husband; Arthur Pritchard, on the grounds that he | Was an habitual inebriate and had failed to maintain her. The bench dismissed the application. I

•THE case for the oomplalnant was 1 handled by Lawyer EL J. W. Hallett, while Lawyer D. Soannell was on deok to look after the husband's part of the business. Althea Maud told the court that ahe took Arthur for better or worse on January 8, 1910, and from the union there were five young Prltchards, two of whom had now reached an age when they could look after themselves* Arthur, she said, was a drover ■ and earned on' an average at least £ 6 per week throughout the year. He also owned their house, and> In addition, possessed a half-acre section. Her married life had not been a bed of roses, said Althea, on. aocount of her husband's behavior. He had been addicted to • drink for about eleven years and at least twice a week, on Wednesdays and Saturdays, would come home well and truly intoxicated. . When he was In this condition he would make Insulting remarks to her m front of the children. ' „ Sometimes he became violent, and on one occasion had put an axe through the door. t , Another time he upset the table and broke all the crockery. The storms m the Pritchard home had led to the wife' consulting a solicitor In 1923, when Arthur agreed to pay her £4 per week. This payment, however,' was .only kept up for three or four weeks. : Althea. declared that 'when her last baby was born. her husband gave her a bad time with his insults, and told her that he had picked her up "out of the gutter." ' ■".■■•• At the time she was quite HI, and

and then my friends who use It contribute to the running cost. Your friends help you to pay? j — Yes. . . Who are those friends ?— I refuse to give their names. - Has your husband ever complained of your association with these friends? —Yes. ■■' And you took no notice of him? — I did, but he himself carries liquor to those same friends. . What . about Mr. George Williams? Does your husband approve of your friendship with him? — I don't know; he never mentioned him. Lawyer Hallett: Why did you buy your car? — My husband objected to me riding with anyone else and agreed to: it. He offered to help m. the upkeep and to build a shed' I thought it would help to keep the family together. Did you buy it out of your £300? — Yes. Bessie Rosa Hunter, the complainant's mother, said she had often stayed

with her daughter, and from what she had seen she would call her son-in-law an habitual drunkard. Lawyer Scannell: You know it takes two to make a quarrel 7— Yes. Would you say that all the fault is on one aide?— (This poser did not bring an answer.) Who runs Mrs. Pritchard's car?— Well, he doesn't. Hqw many times have you seen defendant come home drunk?— One night he was brought home by a friend and wanted to know which side the wall was on! In the 18 months you lived with them, is that the only time you saw him m that condition?— Well, on.another occasion he was too drunk to carry his chair to the table. Yes, is that .all?— Well, that's all I can remember Just now. He used to start very early for work some mornings, didn't he? — Yes. Was he ever late through his drinking habits? — No.

This oonoluded the story In support of Althea'a application, . V Lawyer Scannell held that the evidence did not prove Prltchard an habitual drunkard. > ; So far aa the maintenance was concerned, an effort had been made' to show that complainant had; spent -her own money on the house, but her bankbook showed that she had drawn; only £20 m 15 months. :U=. As she had a motor-car, an ezp'e'hslve thing to. ; run, ho . more need • be said on that point. ' | ; The defendant, Arthur PHtcharfl, - admitted thai he had gone home "tiddled" oh certain occasions/ but ~ he was never so bad that he could, not take care of himself. : ; He denied that he used insulting language to;. his wife, adding that lie stopped giving her the promised 1«4 per week because she did not pajroll the bills. ■ . ; ■.•'■■;■-;■■ ;; He certainly objeoted to her going out to parties at night while he was away, thus leaving the children by themselves. ' ' Prltchard admitted his wife's story concerning the door, the axe and the broken dishes, but that was about four years ago.- •„' ■■•'.' " -.-v ;:..■■■• Lawyer Halle tt: How many times has your wife left the children and gone to parties ?— I don't know. I have been away a lot. She told me she went out to one party and did not get home till, four m the morning. : You wouldn't have broken that dcor or dishes if you had been sober, would you?— l suppose not. I had a night out. ..■.'■ . '. .• ■■ ' '.■ ■ " You were written to by our firm In 1923 about your conduct to your wife? :— -Yes. ■ ' •■ ■■ ■- ■ . •■■• ; ■ ; ":.