UNABLE TO EXPLAIN.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 138, 13 June 1929, Page 7

UNABLE TO EXPLAIN.

WIFE'S REFUSAL TO RETURN.

CONJUGAL RIGHTS CASE.

HUSBAND'S PETITION OPPOSED,

Proceedings for restitution of conjugal ■.■lghts were taken in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr. Justice Kennedy, by Donald Green, flaxmiller, of Taipuha, North Auckland (Mr. Inder), against Eva Green (Mr. Northcroft). The petition, moved by Mr. Inder, was opposed by Mr. Northcroft, on-behalf of the wife. /

For 20 years the parties had lived together in Foxton, Levin and other places, said the petitioner in evidence. There were two sons who were now grown-up. Four years ago he went to live at Taipuha, where he was interested in a flaxmill. Because of a paralytic stroke in February, 1928, he had been left partly paralysed. His wife left iim early last year on a. six weeks' holiday, shortly after a doctor gave him ten days to live. She returned late in May of last year and he then came to Auckland. He met Mrs. Green and his sons in Queen Street.

The respondent refused to say what she was doing, and said she did not want the petitioner's money. She gave him no explanation, he said, why she left him, but she refused several times in the next few days to return. She went to Hawke's Bay, where she stayed with -relatives, and he returned to Taipuha. ;

Dutiful Wife. j An admission that the respondent had been a dutiful wife was made by the petitioner to Mr.. Northcroft. She had given him no cause for complaint, and he was unable to explain her 5 present attitude. In 1925 he had been bankrupt.

With his wife he had lived in a tworoomed shack at Taipuha, he said, and his-wife did the cooking for 14 or 10 men. At times she did not make his bed, and he considered her lazy. No complaint was made about the living conditions, nor did the respondent find fault with him about his frequent long absences.

Correspondence suggesting that the petitioner had lost his position as Government flax grader on account of being absent at numerous race 'meetings was produced by Mr. Northcroft. Witness made a denial that he had done much betting with bookmakers. A statement from a bookmaker showing that the petitioner had gambled £155 10/ during three days 5 : transactions in May, 1928, was produced by counsel. Further correspondence showing that instructions' were given for placing £20 or £30 at race meetings was also submitted to the petitioner in his crossexamination. He admitted the papers were genuine, and said he had been an owner of racehorses. .

Mr. Northcroft: If you had so much money to gamble could you not have provided better accommodation for your wife?— Not up there; Why not ?—The lahd was only leased. His wife had never charged him with being unfaithful, he said, and she would be telling an untruth if she made such a statement. To Send his wife for a holiday he had spent £87 and had paid her wages. While she was away he telegraphed to her to extend her holiday but denied being, angry upon her return. He denied also having sought to persuade her to agree to a separation. -, . T:h ° strain of cross-examination visibly affected the petitioner,' and a medical practitioner was called. By an effort, the petitioner suggested the questions should ( be continued, savin"I will face it." ' .' °*

Mr. Northcroft": I think the witness had better sit down.

"No, go ahead," said Green. At his Honor's suggestion, however, the Court was adjourned, and the crossexamination was continued later, with the witness seated.

His wife sought to force from him an admission where he was staying, he said. He wanted to take her back, but she refused to go with him. The way she asked for his address influenced him in refusing to give it. Because of his lack of means he could not provide a home, but his people had offered to help him. Losses at the mill compelled him some weeks ago to rescind his contract He was unable to say what his wife would do if the Court made an order for restitution of conjugal rights, but he persisted that his petition was genuine. Wife Liked Sweets. A sum,of £50 his wife borrowed when he was struggling on a farm at Hauraki was for her own uses, and not to help him. For all he knew, it might have been for sweets, as she was fond of confectionery.

Regarding his wife's opposition to his attending race meetings, he said' ;.she was prejudiced because races had ruined her father. There were 1G men at the mill, and they were responsible for some of the.betting referred to by Mr. 'Northcroft,, 1 : His reason for leaving the Government service was to improve his position.

Epdence of the petitioner's poor state of health was given by Dr. E. E. Marsack.

"Seemed Rather Cool."

The respondent, in her evidence, said her husband seemed rather cool to her after she returned from' her six weeks' holiday. When she met him after he had left her she taxed him with having behaved in a wrongful manner. He ha.l said to her that he knew she suspected ihim of going with other women. In reply to her requests for his address he had said he would not tell her or anyone ' else/-where he was. He suggested to her on more than one occasion that she should obtain a separation order against him, but she replied: "Why take out a separation order? I have done nothing wrong."

(Proceeding.)