DECISION DEFERRED

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 161, 10 July 1945, Page 3

DECISION DEFERRED

PLEA FOR RESTITUTION

OBSERVATIONS BY JUDGE

The restitution petition by Charles T. A. Clark, land agent, Whangarei (Mr. Hubble), contested by his wife, Mary Agnes Clark (Mr. Trimmer), was concluded yesterday in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Fair. Respondent alleged that petitioner's conduct was -such as to justify her in leaving him,

Petitioner was cross-examined at length on his association with two married women in recent months, as indicating insincerity on his part in his petition requiring his wife's return. Witness admitted that during his married life he had liquor nearly every day, but denied that this made him irritable and unpleasant in the family life.

To Mr. Hubble witness said the question of liquor was never discussed between himself and his wife.

Respondent testified to incidents in their married life, stating that they had a short separation in the first twelve months, and that on occasions afterwards her husband had struck her. He had drink frequently and, though not intoxicated, he often was irritable and unpleasant, resulting in domestic squabbles. Several times she had discussed separation with a legal adviser. In respect to the £100 spent during her Auckland visit last year, she said she explained to him that £50 was for money lent. The money was repaid later. He said he didn't believe her, and hit her. She ordered him out of the house and decided to leave him. The furniture she put up for sale was excess furniture; she kept sufficient for a home. He had not made any effort afterwards for reconciliation, or made any apology for striking her.

His Honor said such disputes as described were not uncommon between strong personalities in married life, and he felt that petitioner had established that the wife had put an end to the matrimonial life without just cause. His conduct after they parted was open to criticism, but it was doubtful if it was such as would lead to the Court to decline to grant a decree. However, he was not sure it would be in the interests of the parties to grant a decree; they should try to mend their differences. He would not decide for four weeks. In the meantime he would hear any communication the parties had to make.