THE BROUGHTON CASE

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 73, 19 December 1928, Page 12

THE BROUGHTON CASE

UNHAPPY MARRIED LIFE ALLEGED

FURTHER EVIDENCE Further evidence was heard in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in the ease in which Violetta Broughton is applying for separation and maintenance orders against her husband, Leslie Weedon Broughton, on the grounds of cruelty and failure to maintain. Mr. .1. 11. Salmon, S.M., was on the bench, Mr. O. C. Mazengarb appeared for Mrs. Broughton, and Mr. J. Scott for the husband. Mrs. Broughton continued her evidence regarding the alleged unhappy conditions that existed during her married life. She denied that she had ever created a scene in the street or that she had ever deliberately kept the children away from her husband. She denied also that on one occasion she refused to let Mr. Broughton get his clothes, and said she never “went for” her husband without reason. “I had to stick up for myself,” was her comment. Circumstances of the Apprehension. Evidence concerning the circumstances leading to Mrs. Broughton’s apprehension was given by Senior-Sergeant Butler. He said he had received a file relating to Mrs. Broughton’s alleged mental condition. In order that her condition could be brought under the notice of her husband he minuted the file in the usual way. Next morning Broughton came to the Mount Cook Police Station to see Sergeant Cleary. Witness said that having known Broughton for a number of years he discussed Mrs. Broughton’s condition with him, and told him that a complaint had been received regarding her mental condition. Witness asked Broughton when he had last seen his wife, and what he thought of her mental condition; Witness understood Broughton to say that he had seen his wife the day previous, and that he was satisfied she was insane. ’l'he usual procedure followed in such cases was ex-plained, namely, that he could bring his wife to a doctor, or that he could take a doctor to her house. Broughton said that he did not think she would agree to either course. ■Witness then said that he could arrange for the police matron to go to her house, and, perhaps, Mrs. Broughton could be prevailed upon to go to the police station to be medically examined. Broughton said he did not think his wife would do that, so witness said the next course to adopt would be to go to the Court, and apply for a reception order, and that a warrant would be issued, after which she would be arrested by a plain clothes constable, and the matron. After that, she would be examined in the usual way. Witness said that he told Broughton that if he did not act on those directions —that was, provided he was satisfied that his wife was insane—the police would make inquiries, and if satisfied that Mrs. Broughton was “mental,” they would make the application. Broughton said that he would first like to see his solicitor, Mr. Scott. Soon after Broughton left the Station, Mr. Scott telephoned witness, explaining that Broughton had been to see him about his wife. Mr. Scott asked what the position was, and was informed that a complaint had been received regarding .Mrs. Broughton’s alleged mental condition. Witness explained to Mr. Scott what he had told Broughton. ■Witness knew that a husband could not make such an application unless he had seen his wife within three days, but understood that Broughton had seen his wife the previous day. Also, Broughton had assured him that his wife was insane. In answer to Mr. Muzengarb witness said that in the first place Miss Kirk (secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to W omen and Cnil-' dren) had rung up the police regarding Mrs. Broughton. Mr. Scott submitted that the evidence did not show that there had been persistent cruelty, and that there was no case to answer. He submitted that the indignity suffered by Mrs. Broughton in regard to being taken to the mental hospital did not constitute cruelty. It was not Mr. Broughton who had set the ball rolling. The complaint came from a well-known social worker whose name stood high in the community. Counsel submitted that the husbands failure• to maintain was not deliberate and that there had been nothing in the evidence to warrant a separation. The Magistrate, however, thought that there was a case to answer. Husband's Evidence.

Mr. Scott put the husband into the witness box. Broughton denied that he had ever illtreated his wile m any wav. He alleged that about 19-6 a doctor and the police were called into his home in Hill Street and the police had told him that the best thing he could du was to keep his wife under observation. Witness added that they were asked to leave practically every place that they lived in. In Ellice Street, alleged witness, she broke chairs. To his knowledge the police had been called in on three or foul occasions. Witness said he must haie made an error when he c'lilration form on October 25 stating that he had seen his wife the previous day. Just before the proceedings were adjourned, Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson remarked that he was present to watch the case on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children. Miss Kirk, the society’s secretary, was in Court ana was prepared to give evidence, because she had made no allegations about Mrs. Broughton’s insanity when she rang the P °The Magistrate said that at present he saw no reason for calling Miss Kirk. Proceedings were adjourned until Saturday morning.