UNHAPPY MARRIAGE

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 120, 6 February 1923, Page 5

UNHAPPY MARRIAGE

4 MAINTENANCE ORDERED NATTRASS V. NATTRASS CASE Details of unhappy married relationships were related to Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Vera Louise Nattrass proceeded against her husband Howard Nattrass, for separation, maintenance and guardianship orders. Mr. G. G. G. M atson appeared for the applicant and the defendant wa» represented by Mr. D. Jackson. Outlining the case for Mrs. Nattrass, Mr. Watson described the relations which had existed between the parties for tho past five years, during four of which they had been living apart. Tho first, reason for separation was that Nat trass had been the defendant in a seduction action, and the deed entered into to pay maintenance to his wife at £2O per month had been secured by tlm Nattrass and Harris Motor Company, for whom Nat(trass had been working. From March, 1919, until February. 1921, the payments had been kept up, but when Nattrass severed his connection with tho firm ho made no effort to >pay maintenance. The company, who were called upon as guarantors under tho deed, paid for several months, but from the .end of 1921 until early in 1922 no maintenance whatever was forthcoming. Then tha defendant appeared as tho proprietor of an invention or patent in connection with a carburettor, which resulted in the formation of a syndicate. H« still persisted in 'the default, and Mrs. Nattrass naturally became perturbed when she learned that he was about tn proceed to America on business relating to the patent. However, on April 24, a fresh deed was entered into between tho petitioner, the defendant, and the Howard Nattrass Tank Carburettor Syndicate whereby Nattrass was to receive some £2OO and contribute £2 10s. weekly as maintenance. Nattrass was permitted to proceed to America and the syndicate was called upon to guarantee tho payments, and in addition, defendant’s return to the Domin-

ion.' Also it was arranged to have thirty shares made over to a trustee as a guarantee of Nat trass’s return. Tho payments were regularly made until November, last, whim Nattrass was advised that ho was no longer abroad on tho syndicate’s business. He returned early this year, and on Friday morning last the syndicate uaid the maintenance as provided for under the deed. “It was paid at the point of the gun, just as all other moneys wo received have been paid,” declared Mr. Watson. For four .years, he added, Nattrass had maintained a young woman who was the cause of all the trouble. i In evidence William Edward Wills, manager and trustee* of the Howard Nattrass Tank Carburettor Syndicate, stated that originally Nattrass had 125 shares in the concern, and Miss Strangrnan 25. Now, however, Nattrass found himself with 51, while witness had an order for the transfer of ’ four of Miss Strangman’s shares. The syndicate had recently paid Nattrass; £4007\ Prior to going to America he'( had received £2OO and was thereafter ■ paid a weekly salary of £6. The plaintiff gave evidence as to her relationship with the defendant. She had been married for thirteen years, she said, and there wa.s one son whom she was endeavouring to educate. Air. Watson: And have you any means? Witness: Absolutely none. Is it a fact that you would have been destitute bad you not received that money last week?—“Yes, absolutely. . . . On one occasion I received nothing for six months.” ' Replying to a question by Mr. Jackson, witness stated that although she had once earned £2 per week in a - drapery establishment, her lack of experience precluded her obtaining other employment. “I have, taken a course oT short hand and typing,” added Airs. Nattrass, “so that I might be able to get a job where experience is required.” The defendant stated m evidence that just now be was not engaged in sny particular occupation, and was not ' in receipt of any salary. A. motor dealer by occupation, he had procured agencies in America, but he was unable to operate them for fianancial reasons. Mr. Jackson: Tell the Magistrate how you came to be separated. His Worship: I think -I know well enough. 1 want to hear'the present circumstances. Defendant: I suppose the papers will be reporting this His Worship: If a case such as this

comes before the Court that cannot be helped. Tlw defendant embarked upon a lengthy explanation of his financial matters, and denied an allegation tsnt he had endeavoured to leave the country without making provision for his wife. J-le had always been prepared to maintain her. he said. His Worship: Where do you live? Defendant: At an hotel. His Worship: What do you pay for your board? .Defendant: £3 a week. His Worship (sharply): And you expect your wife to Jive on £2 10s. I Mr. Jackson intimated that defendant would bo prepared to pay £2 10s. weekly, at the rate of £lO per- month in advance. Mr. Watson (to defendant): You ’«!’m to be consumed with anxiety to inamta'n your wife, but are you not destitute ? • Defendant: I’m not destitute and never will be. You have no right to make use of that term. Mr. Watson- You were deported from America, were you not? Defendant (shout-'iig) : That’s a lie! I might make you prove what you say! Mr. Watson: You were once eonvicted in tins Court as a rogue and a vagabond? Defendant (more loudly) : That’s another lie! Mr. Watson : Do you mean to tell mo that you were not convicted here of Defendant: No! Certainly not. You are only saving this for the benefit of the Press. I S ay no, I was not! Mr. Watson : You need not talk to mo Ike tint. I could go into other matters. This man, sir, is telling absolute falsehoods. His Worship: I hwe made up my mind in this case. Th s man -s capable of earning a living and it is h:s dot-.- fir=t to look after h : s w-fe and child. TT<> is ordered to contribute £3 a week for his wife and £1 for the ch-'d. Consideration of th? ouestioii of security was adjourned for one month on the understnnd’rg that the defendant pay £l6 in advance. --Z