RABBITS AND A SUMMONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 162, 10 July 1926, Page 10

RABBITS AND A SUMMONS.

A FISH SHOP VIGNETTE.

"GIVE ME SEPARATION," ASKS WIFE.

"He said he would take an axe to mc, or take to mc with a good knife, if 1 did not withdraw the ease within two hours," said the wife of Edward James Young in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. She asked Mr. VV. K. McKean, S.M., for a separation order. When Young was served with the summons he quietly displayed it in the window of the fish shop in Newmarket, of which his wife is manageress. It was supported by a couple of rabbits. The wife "told the Court with some indignation the story of her married life. They were living together in premises at the back of the fish shop and the rent was free. Occasionally her husband helped her in cutting up fish. He was quite all right when he was off the drink. Mr. Bryce Hart (who appeared for the husband): He is working■ on the railways now, and do you think for a moment that the authorities would employ a habitual drunkard? The Wife: No. He is too cunning for that. He waits till he gets home, and then starts drinking. Further questioned by Mr. Hart, witness said it was not true that her husband had given her some £30 since Christmas. The eldest of the three children was 16. Mr. Hart: Now, you go out at night occasionally, don't you, Mrs. Young? The Wife (hastily) : I have been three times to the pictures, once to church, and once to a cat show during the last two years. Mr. Hart: I hope you didn't mix the eats with the rabbits. Continuing, the wife said that she did not have enough money to keep the place going. Mr. Hart: Except the £4 a week you earn and the rent free. The eldest son said that as long as he could remember there had been trouble in the home. He put the trouble down to his father's drinking habits. Mr. Hart said there was really no evidence of cruelty or excessive drinking. The defendant was most respectable, had lived in Newmarket 35 years, and had never been before the Court before. If turning out the lights in the shop constituted cruelty, then it was very mild cruelty, to say the least. To his mind, some ladies had been getting their heads together, and had decided to make a case. In giving evidence, the defendant said that nobody had ever seen him drunk. Sometimes he took home a bottle of stout and his wife always helped him to drink it. His son was quite wrong when he said that drink was the cause of all the unhappiness. Mr. Sel. Clark (who appeared for the complainant) : When did you have a drink last ?—Yesterday '• You had one morning, didn't you ?"—" No. I have not had one all day." "What is the sweet you are chewing?" —" What's it got to do with you V Mr. Clark: It's a scented" sweet to take away your breath.—lt might be. Mr Clark: Now, what kind of a sweet ie it? Witness f swallowing hard): It's «»one now. ' ° Mr. Clark: Perhaps it's just as well. After further evidence had been heard, the defendant undertook to take out a prohibition order, and the case was adjourned sine die.