A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 287, 2 December 1911, Page 11

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD.

____—_- ■ + SEPARATION APPLIED FOR. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, after the "Star" had gone to press, j Martha Lloyd proceeded against her ! husband, William James Lloyd, before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., for a summary ! ' separation, on the grounds of persistent ! cruelty and asault. A charge of assault was also brought against James Lloyd j jby John Subritzky. Mr. Matthews ap- j ! peared for each of the plaintiffs and i I Mr. McGregor defended. The fact 3of the case were that on the afternoon of October 27 something ocj curred to disturb the serenity of the I Lloyd household in Ponsonby-road. Plaintiff alleged that her husband had been acting in such an overbearing manner towards herself and the two sons, aged 19 and 7 years, that she was constrained to threaten proceedings for a separation order. Thereat, it was further i alleged, defendant burst forth into bad j I language, exclaiming that that was j I what his wife had been driving, |at for years, and stating that the j d foreigner had put her up . Ito it. The person thus referred to j . ! was John Subritzky, aged 82 years, who j had lived in the Lloyd- family .for many ' ; years, receiving his board in return for :', paying the rent. The latter was at the ! time of the outburst reading a paper in the kitchen, and, it was stated, defen- i. dant rushed upon him, catching him by the throat and striking him with his | ' fist. Mrs. Lloyd and the boys inter- j vened in defence of the old man, during which the first named was struck on the | head with a vinegar bottle. Mrs. Lloyd j i said the bottle was in the hand of her husband, but the latter maintained that Subritzky was swinging it at him when Mrs. Lloyd came between. Further assistance was sought from outside. Plaintiff stated that she would never under any conditions again live with her husband, because of his cruel treatment and , bad language. Mr. McGregor: Why don't you leave | Subritzky? Plaintiff: No, I won't do that. He has I been the best friend my boys and I have I had. Plaintiff admitted that her husband had given her a diamond ring, valued at £25, quite recently, but it was ' only an attempt to patch matters up. Defendant had gone to South Africa for j two years, leaving her and the boys with i Subritzky. The latter had been always j good to them, and on one occasion had provided the money for defendant to buy a fishing boat. For the defence, a complete denial was given to the charge of assaulting Sub- j ritzky. Defendant was in the unenviable position of not being master of his own ' house. Subritzky was the man who paid the rent and gave the orders. Defendant had for some time past refused to speak to Subritzky, and he admitted having referred to him as a "d foreigner.' He desired that his wife and family j should live with him in a house of their own. Defendant was convicted upon the charge of assaulting Subritzky and ordered to come up when called upon, | he having to pay 21/ costs. The separa- j tion was adjourned sine die. '