AN ILL-ASSORTED COUPLE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 80, 3 April 1906, Page 5

AN ILL-ASSORTED COUPLE.

EXTRAORDINARY" EXPERIENCE.

WIFE'S INTERESTING EVIDENCE, v| Mr C. C. Rattle, S.M., heard a divert-"; ing and extraordinary story of a matrimonial failure this, morning in the Police Court. A delicate-looking woman named Jane Florence Maddoek applied; for 'a maintenance, order against her husband, Charles W. Maddoek, and the evidence in support of the application was quite out of the ordinary; run of complaints. Mr J. R. liundon appeared for the complainant, and Mr E. O. Blomfield for—the defendant,, -whose evidence ihafl. beeit taken at Eltham- - ' ; Jane Florence Maddock, the complainant, said that she -was married to the defendant in Auckland last August. They knew each other in Eltham, and when the witness and her mother came to live in Auckland he unexpectedly appeared. He alleged that he owned a house and -a; well-stocked farm at Eltham, and witness' mother agreed to the marriage. The day after Maddock's arrival witness married him. Her husband gave her £5, but asked for the return of £4, which he obtained. He said he wished to hurry back to Eltham to attend a cattle sale, and they left, Auckland on the Friday. The day after the "weddiag lie would not speak to her, and on the way .down in the boat she tried unsuccessfully to start a conversation. Then she decided not to speak. ' His Worship: You were botb, silent? Witness: Yes. His- Worship: Married in haste and repiented at leisure! Perhaps he was seasick? The complainant: Xo, the sea was quiet. Mr Blomfield: Probably it was the depth of emotion. Mr Lundon: As a matter of fact, when they took a seat in a tramcar the day after the wedding, he was afc one' end and she at the other. ■ Mrs. Maddock went on to explain that when they arrived at Eltham she found that there was no farm or house, and her husband even had nowor.k. He obtained a job driving a- baker's ' cart. ■What her counsel called "the silent treatment' , still continued, and the witness said she asked her husband why he would not speak. His reply was that he had a tickling in. his throat. Hewould not tell her where he worked,, and used to stay out late at night. When i he came in and was asked , to account for where he had been, he said he had visited other women. She got disgusted with this" treatment when five weeks had elapsed. Her husband gave her 3d and a pair of boots during the whole time., and the food was not very plentiful. She wrote to her mother for money to return home, and when it came. she went away, carrying her own parcel -.to the station. Her husband told her he would not let her .darken, the door again. Mr. Lundciri: Did he demand the wed-! ding riiig? Witness: "Yes, he asked mc to give Mm the thirteen shillings he paid for it. The witness added that after her arrival in Auckland , she received a newspaper "containing an advertisement notifying that Maddocjc would not be responsible for any debts contracted in his name. - Mr. E. C. Blomfield, who defended, questioned the witness as to her mone--tary position before and after she wae' married. She stated that' she was poor before the ceremony, and was no worse afterwards. Mr. Blomfield: Did you marry him because you were iorid of him, or because of the farm? Witness: I liked the fellow, and we all believed him at first. Why did you leave him? —Because he "took mc in" and had nothing at all. The witness, questioned further by the defendant's solicitor, said that when she announced her determination" to leave Eltham, her husband and his mother tried to persuade her to. stay. A fortnight after she returned (to her mother Maddock came to Auckland and invited her to go back, 'but her mother told him she should not, after the way in which Maddock had treated her. His Worship: You, married his property, and not the man? Witness: No, the man. Mr. Blomfield: But you did not, wapt the man. His Worship: If he had been a poor man, would you have married him? Witness: I suppose so. Would you if he had 'no farm?—No, sit. The magistrate reminded the witness that early settlers in New Zealand had no drawing-rooms or pianofortes, but "roughed it," united by the bonds of affection and a determination to establish themselves. Three tradesmen's bills were put in on behalf of the and Mr Lun- ' don suggested that this was to prejudice the magistrate's mind in regard to the , complainant's housekeeping. He pointed out that .no meat was bought for three weeks after the marriage. His Worship: They were living on lore. •"'•."• Jane Xioder, the mother of the complainant, gave evidence in regard to the defendant's representations, and in reply to the magistrate, said the principal grievances were that Maddock had no.farm as he alleged, he refused to pay for her housekeeping and clothing, and he neglected his wife. She described the defendant -with much emphasis as "a perfect colonial liar." Why did you call him a liar? asked the magistrate. - "Because colonials are very untruthful," replied the witness. Mr Blomfield produced the defendant's depositions, and suggested that the complainant's story was so absurd on the face of it that no importance could be attached to it. She was. dissatisfied with her home, and instead of taking the man "for better or for worse," "threw him "over arid asked the magistrate to assist her. Haddock's evidence, he said, showed his anxiety to take hie wife back. _He had had no opportunity of replying to the charges brought by $he complainant. The magistrate decided to reserve his decision, remarking that at that moment he did not think it was a ; ease where an order should he made. He would take time to consider his. decision. . Apart from the humorous situations, added his -Worship, it was a deplorable business, showing the necessity for parents ;not allowing their daughters to marry in haste. ; .