REPARATION ORDER REFUSED.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 76, 1 April 1899, Page 6

REPARATION ORDER REFUSED.

At thai Police Cpurt on Thursflay, Mr H. S. Wardell, S.M gave his decision on the application or Annie Howard for a judicial separation from her husband George B. Howard, under the provisions of the Married Persons Summary Separation Act. The case has occupied the Magistrate's attention at intervals for several' days, evidence being called by Mr Brookfleld, complainant's counsel, in support of the grounds of the application; persistent cruelty and neglect to provide reasonable ■maintenance. There had been a complete reconciliation of- the parties on January 31st, and the main point of the case was whether there had been any subsequent misconduct on the husband's part to justify the complainant in bringing forward evidence or what might have occurred prior to that reconciliation, His Worship

decided that the cruelty upon which the order could be granted must have occurred since the forgiveness, and he held that none had been proved. Ha did not think complainant ■was entitled to the order upon the ground either of cruelty or non maintenance.

In reviewing the evidence His Worship said it was a very curious thing that in this case there had been repeated reconciliations, but the chief reconciliation appeared to have taken place on January 31st, when it was decided to let all bygones be bygones. The parties wore to meet next day to make definite arrangements, though what these were had not been stated. The husband failed to keep the appointment, but his excuse of illne^cj appeared a satisfactory re&soii, He went later,-but meanwhile his wire tme? being disappointed over the meeting had {ip-r parcntly become obstinate and determined not to go back to U*r hutstfand, tia sjho^h in her evidence: 'He offered me a home since these proceeding's were commenced, but I wouldn't accept It,' So Jar as the husband was concerned. Hio Worship heid that no cruelty since the reeoneiliadon on January 31st had been proved, Mr Brookfield had contended that the fact' that three young men were Hollowing and spying upon Mra Howard wtia an run of cruelty sufficient to revive the question of cruelty antecedent to the reconciliation. His Worship decided otherwise, It had not been proved that the husband engaged these men, and even if he had there was nothing Improper In a man keeping note of his wife's movements if his suspicions were aroused by her refusal to go back to him, provided that she was not improperly molested. Any cruelty prior to the ISlst January had been condoned, and nothing had occurred subsequently to justify its revival. As for maintenance, His Worship said he could not make an order in view of the wife's statement that she had refused to take .the home her husband offered. She appeared to have acted somewhat hastily in the matter.

The order was refused, each party to pay their own costs.