DIVORCE ASKED

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 284, 1 December 1941, Page 8

DIVORCE ASKED

ALTERNATIVE BASIS UNUSUAL ALLEGATIONS . Allegations of separation or desertion were the basis of a petition for divorce brought by George Ewan Soutar (Mr. Robinson) against Agnes Stewart Soutar (Mr. N. I. Smith) before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court to-day. Mr. Robinson said petitioner was born in Scotland and arrived in New Zealand in 1912, meeting his wife on a farm on which he worked in Canterbury. They became engaged, but the Great War intervened and petitioner served abroad with the N.Z.E.F., being wounded before being invalided home. He married respondent shortly after his return, and they lived in the Hawke's Bay district for a time before coming to Auckland, where petitioner took-up clerical work and, in the joint names of himself and his wife, purchased a house at Glen Eden. Petitioner would allege that when he returned from hospital after treatment caused by a recurrence of war wounds, his wife's attitude towards him was such that they agreed to separate in 1932 or, if it was held that tnere was no separation agreement, the respondent's conduct forced him out of the home and amounted to constructive desertion. "Decided Coolness" It was in August, 1924, that he was admitted to hospital suffering from the effects of a war wound, said the petitioner in evidence. He remained there for some years, but during that period he was allowed to return home for a term of six months. He and his wife were happy then, but when he was finally discharged from hospital in August, 1927, respondent showed a decided coolness towards him. He was then in receipt of a full pension. He added that respondent, nevertheless, looked after him quite well, but differences arose over the child of the marriage, his wife seeming to hold the idea that he should have nothing to do with the training of the boy.

"She gradually turned cooler towards me, and turned against me altogether," said petitioner. "She almost turned to hate me altogether. Quite often when she was passing me with a broom she would smack me over the leg and tell me to get out of the way. At times she would smack me with her hand as she went past."

On one occasion, he said, when he went to see the doctor about his pension, he had a wound in his leg caused by his wife striking him with the broom. He then told his wife that she would have to cease this or he would strike her in the same place and by the same means. He succeeded in stopping her, but he did not strike her hard.

His wife became verv excited about this time and adopted the practice of calling in a neighbour, but as the neighbour could see that there was nothing wrong, he finally refused to be called in any more. Petitioner recounted one occasion when his wife had allegedlv pushed a knife against his chest "when he was having a cup of tea in a room against her wish.

"She said, "Now, will vou go out'' " said petitioner,, "but I "still refused. The reaction came then. She dropped the knife and sat down in a chair and burst out crying. This was typical conduct on her part." Give Him a Hiding He said that on another occasion she had called in a neighbour and asked him to "give Mr. Soutar a hiding." The neighbour refused. His wife, alleged petitioner, then asked the neighbour to hold him while she administered the "hiding," but the neighbour refused again. Petitioner said his health improved so that he was able to take casual work in 1931. His wife occupied a separate bedroom. There was not so much trouble in the house for a time.

However, on February 13, 1932, petitioner was arrested on an application made by Mrs. Soutar for a reception order under the Mental Defectives Act, 1911. The matter came before the Court and the application was dismissed.

"No fresh arrangement was then made, said petitioner. "I merely told my wife that so long as she controlled herself and lived reasonably it would not be so bad. However her conduct did not improve." Eventually, petitioner went on he asked respondent if she would leave the house as one of them had to go. She refused to go, so he moved out on October 1, 1932. He had paid his wife maintenance.

To Mr. Smith, for respondent: It could not have been October, 1934 when he left home in spite of what his wife and son might say. He had not left home without giving a definite reason, and stating what he was doing. His wife was quite aware he Avas leaving. There was no written agreement to separate, but his wife had raised no objection to his decision.

To his Honor: It might possibly have been 1933 when he left home out it was certainly not as late as 1934. (Procepding.)