UNUSUAL DIVORCE SUIT.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 78, 1 April 1922, Page 7

UNUSUAL DIVORCE SUIT.

A WIFE MISUNDERSTOOD. THE PETITION WITHDRAWN. A rather unusual defended divorce suit was heard in the Supreme Court yesterdsfy afternoon, before Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury of 12, when Albert Webb, a manufacturing tailor, asked that his marriage irith Mary Jane Webb be dissolved, on the ground of separation by mutual consent. Mr. Singer appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. Rogerson for the respondent. The petitioner, giving evidence, stated that he was a manufacturing tailor, and was married to the respondent on April 9, 1901. After the marriage they lived in different parts, culminating in Auckland. In the early days of married life he succeeded in getting on well wsth hist wife. As a result of the war affecting his business, petitioner was compelled to close up his shop and accepted a position as a cutter. Jn order to pay his debts he was obliged to sell up his property. For a Ion? while after his wife kent mentioning the fact of petitioner selling his business. Her whole attitude changed, and sbe had a violent temper. His Honor: What was this temper like? —Well she never used to greet mc when I got home and used to tell mc to go out and water the garden. His Honor: Well, 1 would call that violent temper. Continuine his evMenee petition stated that after the birth of the seen' child he occupied a back room "on 1' nwn.*' That w?« his wife's suggestii' The y were fiTht : r.£r to a certain extc'i Hi*s Honor: Where were you living? Tn Pevonrtort. Respondent was always cross, and th ■' resulted in his keeping* away from th" home. She used to call him all sorrof names, find hlamed witness as V'" cause of her having children. He alwnvmaintained W* wife. wa = cross-examined at lemrth by Mr. Rogerson. He admitted that his wife wrote tn him from Wainawa. asking; him to st»rt n home again. Petitioner admitted having written several letters to his wife, in which lie stated that on no account, would again live with her. In one letter he stated. "Oh. how I hate all women, aril vet T have them working for mc." In another letteT to his wife at Wainawn petitioner admitted stating: "I will do all I can if yon will fret teis business fixed up quietly: if mn d ■-■•'<■ >,-r.M. T have my own remedy." He further | admitted receiving a nresent from li*-= .wife iust before Christmas and a not*. en"loc,?d from his daughter, and tn returning the present, accompanied witli some spiteful remarks to his wife. Mr. Rogerson: Now do you call yourself a man, writing such a note to your wife, and returning a present at Christmas. which is an occasion on which goodwill is usually shown?— Well, mv daughter did not write the letter. Tf she wants to send mc a present I will not have it sent through my wife. Two- witnesses tendered evidence en behalf of the petitioner. Giving cviI dence. the respondent. Mary Jane Webb, i said that in September. 1918. she lent to ' her husband flOfl with which to start |husiness. When their home and furni- [ ture were sold she suggested that she should go to her sister's home to recu- | Derate, and give petitioner a chance to make another home. Petitioner agreed. and witness remained at her sister's nlacp until September. 1920. She then repcived a letter from petitioner, in which he asked her to sign a deed of separation. She refused, and suggested ] again that he should make a home instead. She had no complaint against him. She had been misunderstood liv him. Evidence was also given by another witness. When the Court resumed last evening Mr. SingeT intimated that he had conferred with his client, and in view of the evidence he had decided to make formal application to withdraw the petition. His Honor granted the application, and allowed the respondent costs on the higher scale, with disbursements and witnesses' expenses.