WHOSE FAULT ?

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 167, 16 July 1936, Page 8

WHOSE FAULT ?

DIVORCE SUIT.

HUSBAND'S PETITION.

WIFE DEFENDS CASE.

CAUSES OF SEPARATION,

A husbaiid's suit for divorce on the ! ground of separation was defended in- • the Supreme Court this morning by his wife, who contended that the separation was due to li.s wrongful acts and conduct in that lie was guilty of persistent cruelty and failure to maintain. The petitioner was Ferdinand Carl Bock (Mr. Singer), labourer, of Auckland, and the respondent Annie Edith Florence Bock (Mr. Schramm). The action was heard before Mr. Justice Callan. A complaint was brought by the respondent against the petitioner in December, 1932, alleging failure to maintain and persistent cruelty, said Mr. Singer, in opening. The result was that the magistrate made an order for separation, with maintenance at 25/ a week, on the ground of failure to main"tain, the other ground not being sustained. The parties had lived apart from the date of the order. Counsel then referred to an authority which had established that either party might petition for divorce on the ground ot three years' separation, and it was for the Court to decide if the allegation of the defence, that the separation was due to the wrongful act or conduct of the petitioner, was proved. Respondent's Second Marriage. The marriage took place in 1922, continued Mr. Singer. The respondent had previously been married in 1902 and divorced on the ground of separation in 191 S. At the time of her second marriage she had three children, aged 20, 18 and 14, respectively. The youngest, a girl, lived with the parties for some time. The marriage was a happy one for several years, and the petitioner was allowing his. wife £4 a week. Later he lost his employment. There was trouble | in the home when another of his wife's daughters came to live with them. The petitioner had been in partnership with the step-son and when that was dissolved his wife went out daily to help her son in other work he obtained. The husband took umbrage at the consequent neglect of his home through his wife's absence. He had to get his own meals sometimes and there was an occasion when both brought home fish and cooked their own meal. Mr. Schramm: You should tell the whole of the story. Mr. Singer: The petitioner will do so. It is just as good a fish story as most— probably better. Counsel added that there was a squabble between the, parties, which was followed by the wife leaving the home and obtaining a separation and maintenance order for 20/ a week. This was later reduced to 15/, a sum temporarily further reduced to 7/0 later. The respondent was served with divorce papers in time for the February session of this year and she brought proceedings for disobedience of the maintenance order. The result of this was that the maintenance was restored to 15/ a week with 5/ extra towards the arrears. Trouble Over a Meal. The petitioner, in evidence, referred to the trouble that arose when his wife went out to help her son in business, returning late at night. He recalled one niglit when he brought some fisli home for tea. When he arrived lie found that his wife had also brought fish. She had cooked it and was about to have her meal She toid liiin he could cook his own. This annoyed him so he told her he would not let her have her meal until she cooked his. His wife went to her room and got a dowel stick, 0 feet long. He ran out of the house to the lawn, where his wife followed and broke the stick over his head. "I picked up the broken half and waved it in front of me. She rushed at me again with the other half and was struck on the thumb. . That was the only time I ever did any • violence to my wife. I was trying to ward her off." Petitioner said that next day, November 22, his wife went out and did not return. In the following December she brought a complaint against him in the Magistrate's Court, when the separation and maintenance order was made. The petitioner denied that he had ; failed to maintain his wife within his means. In reference to the maintenance orders made against him he had always paid what he could. Cross-examined, petitioner said his average earnings were now £2 a week. When the case was heard in the Magistrate's Court in March last his average earnings were shown as £3 a week, but : that for a period of five, weeks only". Petitioner undertook to get a certified : statement of his average earnings this year and place it before the Court this < afternoon. In the four months before : (ho trouble with li'.s wife he was earn- i ing £2 10/ a week. He offered her £1. which she threw back at him.. There- 1 after he gave her nothing. Mr. Schramm: How did she get food? ; —I supplied it. i (Proceeding.)