DOMESTIC DIFFERENCES.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 122, 23 May 1919, Page 6

DOMESTIC DIFFERENCES.

. — I MATTERS OF MAINTENANCE | HOME DISAGREEMENTS. The usual Friday batch of domestic cases occupied Mr." J. VV. Poynton, S.M., to-day in the Magistrate's Court, but the j list was appreciatively lessened by a scries of last-minute withdrawals and 1 adjournments. Tlie first active proceeding's was an application for separation, Mary Watson v. Henry Wateon, a matter which his Worship described ac a somewhat sad etory of family disunion. The defendant di<l not put in an appearance. Plaintiff said she had live children, who were in a convent and being supportedHer husband recently returned from the war. and was drinking: excessively. He received a pension, and she also received 15/ p?r week. Since his return he caused trouble in the home. He was a prohibited man, who was till right "hen sober. She asked for a separation in order that she would be free to go to work and to prevent interference from him. His Worship agreed that 15/ was not «ul!icient for complainant to live on. tor the sake of tii* children he preferred not t.> make a full record of the parents' troubles in the Court books. Tie would, therefore, not make a reparation order, hut if the defendant interfered with her she was at liberty to come to the Court for separation. A maintenance order for £1 per week was made. IVrsistent cruelty and <lrunkenne-e were practically the grounds for an applitidii for separation, maintenance and custody of three children, by Florence Murton (Mr. C. K. Matthews). a?airst 1). Murton. boiler-maker (Mr. K. E. N. Matthews). It was stated that defendant. «h<> ill-treated his wife and broke his prohibition order, on the 12th ir.st. assaulted hi* wife in the street and was oidt-red a week's imprisonment. (inters, as requested, were made, maintenance beina fixed at the rate of .C 2 per week, with coste. THK IICSBAND'S FAULT. Counsel, in another instance, said the contesting husband and wife married in 11102, arrived in New Zealand in 1910, and had three children, whose ages ranged from !• to 14 years. When they came to the Dominion they had very little money, and the wife. .Mrs Annie IC. Drake (Mr. (tellurite Lilly), assisted the husband, Krne.st Drake (.Mr. Glaister), in bis work as a cleaner, and also by kccpins boarders. Defendant started business on his own account ac the Dominion Cleaning Company, and in the l:i.-t eight years had become comparatively well oil. The couple had been unhappy through defendant drinking , heavily, behaving violently, and usin , ,' filthy language in front of his wife and children. Since about February he was continually throwing in his wife's face the fact that lie was keeping company with another woman. As the result of a quarrel complainant had ceased to eoi habit with her husband, who left home some ten weeks ago. Complainant said that her husband acted <li-gracefully to her. and had give-\ her three or four black eyes. He had I frequently asserted that he was going I with Mrs Woods, a widow, and that he did not want complainant. who had I found articles which qualified his assertions. He had turned Mrs Drake out of bed on three or four occasions. an;l she I had found it necessary to protect herself. ' Cross-examined she said the police had 'been called in. and both she and the I children were afraid of defendant. She Iliad appropriated certain war bonds and certificates, so that she had some security t'.iat she obtained maintenance, and so that the other woman would not get I hold of them. She had always treated 'defendant as a wife should. Defendant Iliad threatened even to turn her out of the house and bring in the other woman. Christian Wardrop. a neighbour, testified to the misbehaviour of defendant, and said that had not Drake left the house, she and her husband, who wer? disturbed by Ilia language and noise at all hours of the night, would have t:\ken .steps to force defendant to go for the I sake of witness' own children. She I had seen defendant take his wife by the throat. Witness considered Mrs Drake win a good woman and wife. The evidence was a general denial of the allegations, defendant being disposed to contribute to the maintenance of bis children and wife. He met Mrs. j Woods in October, when she was cleaning I out the Crown Studio. He had simply befriended her when she was indisposed. He bad not seen or heard of the woman for two months. Defendant said his I wife was violent towards him. and had j thrown a tin of treacle at him and out I his "face. He had fount] a horsewhip under her pillo-.v. lie expected it was for him. He described what lie considered to be indifference on the part of his wife to attend to him. In reply to Mr. Osburne Lilly, deiendant said he considered that with a free house and furniture. 30/ a week was sufficient to keep his wife and children. ! I!is Worship said that thert was no question but that the woman was thrifty and had supported her husband well, and deserved credit for it. Defendant admitted, on being pressed, that CI per week was little enough to ' keep a wife, but he thought 10/ each was sufficient to maintain the two children. His Worship said the principal fault was on defendant's side. An order for separation and custody was made in favour of complainant, with maintenance at the rate of £3 per week, to be reduced to .€2 so long as complainant I lived in defendant's house. Past maintenance at the rate of £2 ncr week was ordered. Costs were £2 14/. Xo order for security was enforced. AFTER MAXY YEARS. In strong contrast, but equally unfortunate. wa s a claim for increased maintenance in which the parties, after rearing a family and attaining venerable years, had found it necessary to part, j the reason for this regrettable position being given as incompatibility of temperaments. Martha Yeats (Mr. Glaister) sued John Vents (Mr. Peak) for an increase of maintenance—at present 25/ per week and a free house. Counsel said the parties had been living apart for some time. They were an old couple, and he had returned from England where he had been for two or three years, going home on a first-class I passage. She was living in an old cottage belonging to him at Takapuna, and receiving 25/ per week. She had incurred debts which she was unable to pay. An endeavour had been made to obtain an increase of the maintenance to £2 by which Mrs. Yeats would give up the house I an c ) lodge in rooms with a small amount of the furniture. Defendant had said himself the cottage could easily be let at 15/ per week, but it would require a good deal of improvement. Husband and wife came to New Zealand over 30 years ago. and they struggled on for twenty-five jears and shared privations.

Of their family of eight children one son survived. Defendant owned considerable property, and was a man of more th- n | ordinary means. I Plaintiff said they were married fortyI three years. Since- her husband left her i she found that the allotment she rej ceived was inadequate to live upon. She ' had clone a little sewing occasionally, and nursing, but she was not able to continue this work. j Mr. Peak said the reason of coming to Court was to get an assessment of main- ' tcnance. Defendant had taken a trip Home for health reasons. He submitted I that the present arrangements should Ire i quite sufficient for complainant. j Defendant gave details of his property and income. He was willing to continue I the present arrangements, and to make the cottage more habitable. I His Worship said that all the com- ' plainant was asking for was for about i the same amount of maintenance in a different way. He did not wish to make an order. It seemed a little bit of obsti- | nacy on somebody's part. The woman must have been a thrifty person and had I , helped defendant in other days, and had ! some riL'ht to _ share in bis present caoital. If the matter was not settled amicably he would make an order for £2 per week. In the meantim'.- the case was adjourned for a week.