DOMESTIC WOE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 16, 24 February 1914, Page 3

DOMESTIC WOE.

MR AND MRS SNOOK SEPARATED DRESS AND ifeiNK BRING TROUBLE. In the Magistrate's Court to-day, Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., heard the strange tale of the matrimonial troubles of the Snooks. Katherine Snook, who was exceedingly smartly dressed, asked for a separation from her husband on the grounds of persistent cruelty; she also asked for maintenance, and the custody of the two children, aged respectively-five years and three years. Defendant was much more poorly dressed, and attributed the whole trouble to his wife neglecting the home in her endeavour to live a life that should be always merry and bright. Mr J. A. Cassidy appeared for the wife, and Mr M. DonneUy fpr the husband. Dr Louisson deposed to having examined Mrs Snook on the evening of February 16. She was in a nervous and hysterical condition, and complained of having been knocked about. She had a black eye, a cut on her face, and her right arm was .bruised from shoulder to elbow. The whole thing looked like the effect of a blow. It was possible that the injuries might have been caused by a fall, but they did not look like that. „ , Katherine Snook gave evidence that she had been married to Alfred Snook for six years. There were two children, aged five and three. Her husband drank, used dreadful language, and was very cruel to her. He would not let witness go to church, and he beat her. He had dragged witness round the room by her hair. He came home drunk or half-drunk at any time up to 2 o'clock. On the 16th, witness left her mother's at about 10.30. On her way.home witness met her husband, who. attacked her. Having punched her, he picked three cucumbers from her basket and threw them at .her. Inside their own gate her.husband tried . to. choke .her, and then knocked her down. Three young men who had seen the happenings in the street then interfered. They sent her back to her mother's in a cab, and went on to inform the police. To'Mr Donnelly: It was not a fact that witness neglected the house. She denied that her husband objected to her frequenting racecourses or that she did frequent them. Certainly she had had her photograph in a newspaper with a racebook in her hand. She had been in the newspaper another, time as well. (Both pictures produced.) Her people kept her and paid for her dress. Her husband had given her a lady's ticket for the day of the picture. When witness went to races she either took the children with her or left them with her mother. She did not drink, nor frequent hotels. George Thackey said he did not know Snook until Saturday night. He gave evidence as to what he had-seen of the assault,.stating, that the man's attack on the, wohian had been a brutal one. .., . . -•••,,■■, ....''.

Mr Donnelly alleged that this ease

was one of,,a. large class in. which the wives of working men neglected their homes and dressed above their husband's wages- and position. The pictures showed the plaintiff on the racecourse dressed as well as any in the land. The husband told him that the home was neglected, W> that he had even had to watch the children. On the night in question seemed that the had gone : home to find the home neglected, had looked for her, found her in the street, went home" with her, and when they got to the gate of their house she hit him and he retaliated. Mr Donnelly ended with an impassioned comparison of the dress of husband and wife.

Mr Cassidy: Perhaps your client was better stage-managed!. Alfred Snook, general worker, said that he earned £2 5/- per week. The wife did well until she, got with her mother and' sisters, who liked to fly about dressed up. Then there were no meals for him. Several-times lie had had to bathe the children, as she neglected them. She used; sueh bad language to them £i>at the lfttle boy swore back when she, smacked him. She went to racecourses with her sisters —they were a sporting family.? One brother was a bookmaker, and another did not work, but hung about billiard rooms. Plaintiff' gol; most of his money. She got dresses" for which he did not know until afterwards, as she would not wear them • home, but changed at her mother 's.£ !£jn jthe night; of/-the/alleged assault hS had found-the ; iouse locked up. He walked down the road and met his wife. He_reasoned with her for keeping the children out so Jate at night. She had had a drink or so that night, and was half mad. At the gate she hit and kicked him. ,After argument she hit him on the jaw. Witness went to get hold of her, and both fell down the steep terrace to the fence, where her face struck a pickets

To Mr Cassidy: The young man who had given evidence had not been close enough to see. He believed the three men being there was a planned affair: He was not out after 12, though he might have-been out after 11. He had had letters Mr Cassidy as to cruelty, but he rtfcqried/that he had ever struck her. In the course of cross-examination Mr Cassidy said witness ought "to have a month." 4

Mr Donnelly objected to this, and his Worship held that the remark was improper. Frances Snook, mother of the defendant, said that her daughter-in-law did not seem to have proper contrpl of her .children. She did not seem to be a proper mother. It was< the witness's opinion that she should never have been married, let alone have children. A week ago the witness offered her soine advice, and said that she should stop at home, and not go to the races. The plaintiff replied: "I'm d if I do." " Your Worship will know what that means.'' said the witness.

His Worship said that it was quite possible that the complainant's devotion to racing had led her to neglect her home. It was a matter of opinion whether, as a rule, it was harmful for a woman to follow j;aces, but there were certainly many instances where it resulted in neglect of the. home. In the present case there was no doubt that the defendant had committed a very serious assault on his wife, and there was every reason why they should be separated. He would make an order that the complainant heed not cohabit with her husband. She would also have custody of the children, with the proviso that the huspand have reasonable access to them. The defendant would be ordered to pay the costs of the action.