MARRIED COUPLE AT VARIANCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 35, 10 February 1903, Page 5

MARRIED COUPLE AT VARIANCE.

CURIOUS ALLEGATIONS.

The domestic unhappiness of Michael Tobin, an Auckland wharf labourer, and his wife, Mary Tobin, was tlie subject of inquiry at the Police Court to-day before Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M. Tobin was charged with assaulting his wife, who claimed a separation order. Mr Brookfield appeared for the complainant, and Mr Martin for the defence.

Mrs Tobin stated that her husband came home one evening, threw her on the floor and caught her by the throat. When she tried to get out he kicked her on the side of the head. Hei\ dress was torn off, and she was abused by her husband as well. He took her purse and £3 from her, the money having been received from himself' through the Court, for maintenance arrears. Witness's landlady, hearing the noise, came up and asked Tobin to desist, and he struck her in the face. He then went away, alleging that he would not support'witness or her child. They had been married three years, and the child was two years old. He had given her very little money during the last six months, and had assaulted her previously. In reply to Mr Martin, Mrs Tobin "added that her husband was sober. He had left her three times. She had a great difficulty in getting money from him, and this was perhaps the cause. She absolutely denied that he left her because of the manner in which she conducted herself with other men. She had neverreceived love letters from other men, and if her husband found one in a drawer he must have put it there himself.' A letter was handed in by counsel, and Mrs Tobin denied that it was found in her purse. She knew nothing about it. That letter, she asserted, must have been written to get her into trouble.

Mr Brookfleld (reading the letter): Have yon ever told any man that you were miserable and lonely, disliked your husband, and wished you had not to live with him?

Mrs Tobin: No, never.

The landlady of the house where the parties lived stated that she saw Tobin hit his wife, and interfered. Tobin then struck her twice. Witness pulled a piece of a broken hat pin out of Mrs Tobin'.. head, M'here h.r husband had kicked her. She did net believe Mrs Tobin had paid any attention to other men.

Mr Martin urged that fliere was no evidence of persistent cruelfv. His client, had left his wife because he had found love letters which she had received from other men, and on one occasion saw her walking home with a strange j man. On the evening of the a_sui.lt | Tobin went home, and saw his wife making preparations t„ leave. lie jump-i |ed to the conclusion that .she was going 1 away for good, and took her purse away. His Worship remarked that a separation order seemed desirable. It could be annuVed at any time. People made a mistake in knocking their wives about, and treating them as boasts of burden, and if a woman showed a desire to do ! that which they did themselves, they ! immediately assumed a virtuous air. I Tobin, scorned to be a singularly stupid j map, judging by his action*, for he seemed to have gone the wrong way about things. As for the letter, one side was just as likely to be right as the other. Mr Martin again raised the point that persistent cruelty had not been proved, as was necessary to obtain a separation order, and His Worship decided to adjourn the case indefinitely. FAULT ON BOTH SIDES. Annie J. Dallas applied for a separation order against her husband, Maurice William Dallas. Mr Brookfleld represented the complainant, and Mr Burton . the defendant. Mrs Dallas told the Court that her husband, ever since she had been married, with the exception of a few weeks, beat her with his hand. One day he hit her on the back of the head, and threatened to drive her inch by inch into the lunatic asylum. She left him after that. Her husband was an artist, who sometimes did house painting. He seemed to be jealous of her. He created a disturbance in the street about a week ago by accusing her of living with another mam She did not want his money, as she would go to a situation. Three and a-half years ago he had been convicted of assaulting her. In reply to Mr Burton, witness admitted having been convicted of drunkenness. She took the drink simply because her husband was imprisoned for the assault. She would rather go to a suicide's grave than return to him. She admitted writing her mother stating that perhaps there had been faults on both sides. She had a bad temper, but was not going to provoke her husband any more. The defendant, on oath, alleged that drink was his wife's weakness. He had put up with her, though she had bad habits. If his wife would live with him. he hr d a home for her.

His Worship stated that he was not at all satisfied with the deuial of the husband, and granted the separation order.