UNHAPPY MARRIAGES.

Auckland Star, Issue LI, 24 May 1920, Page 5

UNHAPPY MARRIAGES.

DOUBLE BARRELLED PETITION.

A WIFE WHO FORGAVE.

The civil session of the Supreme Court was continued this morning before Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury .with a defended divorce case in which Emily Maud Hedley (Mr. J. F. W. Dickson) was the plaintiff and David Alex. Hedley (Dr. Bamford) respondent. Petitioner, who was married in Auckland in 1895, sought a dissolution on the ground of desertion. There were four children issue of the marriage, th» youngest being born in 1902. She claimed that her husband left her in January, 1913, without any cause. A counter petition of desertion was put forward by the respondent.

The plaintiff in evidence stated that her husband soon after her marriage at the age of 17 treated her in an abusive manner, and had continued to do so throughout their married life. Owing to his threatening behaviour and language she left him and went to Waihi in August, 1912, but came back to the home a few days later. A temporary improvement in bis conduct was effected, but later, she alleged, he threatened to shoot her with a revolver. She again found shelter elsewhere, but gave her husband another trial, returning home on the eve of Santa Claus' visit in 1912. Tiie old feud soon broke out again, and in January she returned home from the pictures to find tlie gate barred. She went to a friend's house, where she was molested the same night at 12 o'clock, and sought the assistance of the police. Yet again she tried to resume her place in the family circle, returning after she had been earning her own livelihood for a couple of weeks. The attempt at reconciliation was again a failure, and she left for good after about six weeks, and had been in employment ever since. Her husband went to the war in 1916, returning in March last. He had not contributed a penny 'to her support, though ahe received a wife's separation allowance when he was on service.

In reply to Dr. Bamford she denied. that she gave her husband as good as she got in the matter of language. Regarding a sum of £150 which she had presented to her husband before finally leaving him this was a sort of additional proof of which her thriftiness had enabled her to save while she kept the books. She took the sum from the till at the rate of a pound or two at a time, and banked it in a stocking. The case is proceeding.