A STAR GAZER.

Auckland Star, Volume 55, Issue 22, 26 January 1924, Page 12

A STAR GAZER.

STRANGE SEPARATION CASE. ALLEGATIONS OF WIFE. HER APPLICATION CHANTED. "This man is an astrologist, a theosophiat, and also a vegetarian, your Worship, and I understand the whole course of his life has been guided by the. stars." It was in such terms that Mr. MeLiver introduced a most unusual domestic matter which occupied the attention of Mr. E. O. Cutten, S3L, practically the whole of yesterday in the Magistrate's Court. Rosina Maud Parr was the complainant in the case. .She asked for a separation nnd maintenance order against her husband, F. M. Parr, carpenter, of Auckland, on the grounds of alleged cruelty. Complainant appeared with her right arm in a. sling. Respondent, a well set-up man. middle aged, had little to say. He was represented by Mr, L. I. Leary. Broke Her Arm. Complainant, said Mr. McLivcr. was not a vegetarian, but never interfered with her husband. It would be shown in evidence that respondent had cruelly ill-treated her—in fact it was alleged that he threw her across a passage into a room causing her a broken arm. On another occasion he endeavoured to dip her in a bath of water. Counsel further alleged that Parr had threatened his wife on more than one occasion. Mrs. Parr then went into the witness box. In answer to Mr. Cutten she said the first trouble occurred when her husband was visited by a young woman—also a tbeosophist. She was a. total stranger to witness and was impudent to her. After the visitor hail departed witness asked her husband why she cume to the house. He replied that she wished to borrow £300 for a friend in connection with a business. AVitness did not like it. Subsequently, on December 10, following on a conversation about the lady visitor, her husband threw her violently across the floor and she sustained a broken arm. Witness admitted, however, that she struck him with a stick first. Her husband told her that she had to have a broken arm because "(lie stars told him so." He also said. "The next time it will be your neck.'' They had been married 21 months, witness left her husband on January 10. Mr. Leary: Marry in haste and repent at leisure, eh! I believe the first trouble occurred when your husband objected to you having" a certain ladyfriend at the house?— Yes. Then a man with his little boy came to see you. Your husband never objected to that ?—No. But he objected when you wanted to go to this man's hotel by yourself? —Yes. that's correct, J cannot tell a lie. You struck your husband with a stick ?—Yes, when he called mc a liar. Now, this young, lady- to' whom vo'u referred has friendly with Mr. Parr's son ?—Yes, but I objected to her familiarity with my husband. -ou created a scene and the young lady left the house?— Yes. I ignored her. ° And you spoke for three hours and your husband could not get a wor _ in?—Xo, I did not. As true as Cod is my judge. Yes, that's so. and Mr. Cutten is your jud_ro too.—Yes, he's a very good man, too. "And the other chap* is a very good— I won't say the rest," Mr. Leary added. Nothing Between Them." The next witness was the young lady who said she was friendly with Air Parr's son. She went to see Mr. I'arr one Sunday afternoon about the loan for a friend of hers. It was silly of Mrs. Parr to think that there was any familiarity- between them. Witness only saw respondent on three occasions. The Fountain of Eloquence. On behalf of respondent Mr. Leansaid that he married complainant 2*l months ago. For a time they lived happily together, but he soon found out her true disposition. Respondent had occasion to take exception to tiie prurient expressions complainant was" wont to make. He also took exception to his wife's friend,'whom she said had removed her wedding ring and went out with other men. His wife had an ungovernable temper, and even if he placed two rooms between them the fountain of eloquence still refused to go dry. She would go on talking for hours. The allegation of cruelty was a fabrication. Respondent, when struck with a stick, simply took her by the wrists, and she fell over. Other Evidence. Two neighbour.-, called by Mr. Leary. testified that -Mrs. Parr had carried her troubles to them. One said that Mrs. Parr intercepted a. letter sent to her husband by the young lady.;. Tiie other witness deposed that Mrs. Parr said things calculated to .provoke her husband. The Husband's Story. Respondent stated that his wife ]>ns r sessed an uncontrollable temper. He did not like her being so suspicious of him. and was greatly humiliated at the' way in which she treated the young lady. Often, ho said, he had to'leave the room, as complainant would talk so much, and frequently had to eat' his meals in another room on account of her abuse He never argued with her. Witness would still give his wife the opportunity of going back to him. but all the same he did not like her breaking her marriage vows. He denied that he attempted to put his wife in the bath. A Remarkable Letter. Mr. MeLiver then read a letter sent by respondent to his wife a few days ago. The letter to his wife was as follows: "Madam, —I am notified that you have received instructions from Maslerton. and the consequences that will accrue if they are ignored. I have likewise been busy at this end, as you may be sure. You may perhaps think that you could turn King's evidence and obtain King's pardon for your share in the transactions. If so, you are doomed to disappointment. I have notified the polio, by telephone of a possible visit from you on that score, and it will simply lead to your detention and ultimate change of address to Mount Eden for a term of years—six or seven, I presume. This is not a threat—merely an endeavour to keep things quiet for the soke of another. That other is the one who will turn King's evidence ami get pardon. There is a possibility that the telephone message may bs traced to mc. If so, God help you, for that will be the end for you.—(Signed) Parr." "You are getting nothing more nor less than the reaction- of your own evil actions and thoughts. Remember you. are your enemy, not mc. Your astrological influences just now lead to disgrace and ignominy. I expect to be notified on

Monday or Tuesday at the latest of the withdrawal of your contemptible action." Mr. MeLiver suggested that the letter was a "bluff" to frighten complainant from coming to the Court. Mr. MeLiver: You could tell your wife, was to get a broken nrm'r—Yes. Why?—l formed my opinion by the planets and stars. What did you mean by your reference in the letter to your telephoning the police?— That's not astrology. No, but it. is a great deal to do with your wife's health. You were divorced by your first wife for committing adultery?— Must I answer that, your Worship? Mr. Cutten: Yes, you must. Witness: Yes, 1 was. Mr. MeLiver: And you are the man who never argues and arc so particular about your wife, breaking her vows. You are a vegetarian ?—Yes. And you don't allow your wife to eat meat'r—Xo, that's not so. Well, you never have meat in the house ?—No. You only allowed your wife 5/ per week after paying tbe household expenses?— Well, not exactly—at the time I hardly had a stitch of underclothing myself. But. you are a first grade carpenter, and can earn £0 or £7 per week ? —I do not- work. I have to look after my flats. They keep mc occupied. How much do you get from the flats? —£6 5/ per week. Mr. Cutten then cross-examined respondent as to his meaning of the letter. Respondent could not explain, "as he had not seen the stars to-day." Mr. Cutten: When you married complainant, you had two-grown-up children? —Yes, and one of them left mc when he knew who I -was marrying. Mr. MeLiver. Do you admit being the cause of your wife's broken arm? —Yes, but I never dragged or threw her across the floor. Magistrate Grants Application. The Magistrate said that each party had been married before. Respondent took a great interest in astrology, and, apparently from the evidence, he permitted his studies to influence his conduct, and also aa a guide. Ho wai also a vegetarian and the almost natural outcome was that his wife, either willingly or unwillingly, would have to become, one too. Respondent found that his wife's conduct up et him. He. admitted that on two occasions he used force to his wife. Firstly, the wife felt trouble, and naturally thought of him harshly, as he had been divorced for adultery. His conduct should have been more circumspect. Why, asked Mr. Cutten, should respondent and tie young lady go to so much trouble to clear thenit-elces when their cjnduct was not even questioned. One had to look at such eirciinistane.es. Mr. Cutten thought Cat the letter was distinctly threatening. Too wife had made out a clear and perfectly good ca.*e. The se;>!aration order would be granted. Maini tenance was tixad at .3 per week for S weeks while complainant was suffering from t'.ie effects of her broken arm. That sum included payment for medical expenses. SolicitorV costs £3/3/ and lull expenses were allowed. After the tight weeks, maintainance would be at 25/ per week. Mr. Leary objected to complainant receiving maintenance, as she had an income of £3 10/ from a house which she owned.