WIFE'S TALE OF WOE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 52, 1 March 1916, Page 7

WIFE'S TALE OF WOE.

ways of Austrian husband, i

ALLEGATION OF ERUTALITY.""" j

A DIVORCE WITHHELD.

Habitual cruelty and drunkenness were the grounds upon which Mre. Ruby Urlich applied for a divorce from George Steve Urlich this morning at the C Supreme Court, before hie Honor Mr. n Justice Cooper. Mr. R. P, Towle ap- ii pcared for the petitioner, and there was ti no appearance of the defendant. J Mrs. Urlich 6tated that she -was mar- a ried to the respondent (a Dalmatian) at Auckland in 1908, and went to live with j n him at Glorit, Kaipara, where lie was: t in business as a storekeeper and gum- j 1 buyer. About a week after the marriage i a respondent clapped her about the head j h and face and threw her out of the house. I c He frequently etruck her afterwards,: b and when ehe remonstrated he thrashed t her worse. He often threatened her life t with a carving knife and also with an a axe. He had a very violent temper, and J at times seemed almost mad, especially t when he was drunk, which was often the d case. Sometimes he used to throw the h crockery at her, and sometimes he beat }i her with sticks and chairs. On several 1, occasions he threw her into a creek, and c each time he locked up the house in order to prevent her from getting dry t clothes. All this happened at Ulorit, j where she did all the work of his stora. t At this time he was pretty continuously t drunk, although there was no hotel in t the place, and he had to get liquor from t a distance, a five-gallon keg of beor last- t ing him a week on an average. When ( they removed to Kaiwaka his general be- t haviour became worse. She had again \ to take up the management of hie store, t i and later he was put upon probation j, j for two years for the theft of 6ome \ 'cheese. Iα consequence of his habits his c \ business failed, and became bankrupt, ] i being still undischarged. They then t ! came to Auckland, where respondent , I worked more or leas regularly ac a , j labourer. He never allowed her eufli- , I cicnt to keep the home going, and she • j had to got help from her Relatives, who < ! took charge of one of her two children. ) !He continued to drink and ill-treat her, , land once when lie knocked her down she i ( 1 fell upon one of the children, breaking i ! ite arm. Since the war he had been , iroore violent, and declared that he hated , J the English. He was now serring sis , ; months for theft. i I Evidence as to the respondent's habits j I while he was in Auckland was given by j the petitioner's mother, who stated that i 'he generally came home drunk. j j His Honor remarked that it ra a!- ( ! moat incredible that a man could be rio | I continuously drunk as the respondent ■ : was alleged to have been without the | j fact being well known to persons out- I > side hie own family, and to the police. I J especially as he had been three times ■ j convicted of theft. If only for the reason that the man was now in gnol he would require eorae independent evidence as to his character before granting a decree. ; The hearing was adjourned to Friday, j

I ON HER BIRTHDAY. |

A HUSBAND'S DESERTION. j A divorce on the ground of desertion j was applied for by Mrs. Mary Alice j White (Mr. E. J. Prendergast), the re-1 spondent, Stephen John White, failing j ito appear. Mrs. White stated that after J I her marriage in 1805 she lived with the j respondent (a paper-ruler) in the house , of her father at Auckland until l»03, | when he left her. For some time he was j j very indifferent toward her, staying out j at uighta, and she saw little of him. At j times he wae given to drink, and once he j knocked her down and kicked her as she ■ j lay upon the floor. He had been re- ( moving his 'belongings from the house for i some time, and finally, while her father i was absent, he declared that he was, going to leave, a3 he had had enough of ' her. She asked him for a reason, and he replied that he had none, except that he was tired of her. He also eaid that he i ' did not intend to provide for her, and | ' she could earn heT living on the streets j L for all he cared. He was still living in! 1 Auckland, but lie had never since con-1 tributed to the support of hcraclf or of their one surviving child. The witness added that ehe remembered tho exact ! date of respondent's departure because 1 it was her birthday. The petitioner's father gave evidence " that for twelve years the parties had not 5 lived together, and he had supported his fc daughter and her child for the whole of r that time. His Honor granted a decree ? nisi.

t . ■ 1 DECREES ABSOLUTE.

His Honor granted decrees absolute in the following cases:—May Noil (Mr. Matthews) v. Ernest C. Neil; Myra Hadden (Mr. Napier) v. Alfred E. Haddcn; Alice J. Kehoe (Mr. Quartley) v, Henry Kehoe; Alfred Alexander ' Parsons (Mr. QuaTtley) v. Elizabeth E. Parsons; Bertha G. Ogden (Mr..Mowlcm) v. W. A. Ogden; Lillian F. E. Cameron (Mr. Ziinan) v. Henry E. A. Cameron.