Judicial Separation.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 6988, 15 February 1894, Page 3

Judicial Separation.

(Before Mr Justice Riohmond.)

RIGGIR V. RIGGIR.

Mr MoLean appeared for the petitioner, Caroline Riggir. Mr Oornford, with Mr Din kiddie, appeared for the respondent. This was a petition under the Divorce ant Matrimonial Causes Aot. Mr McLean said the parties wore married at Hampden iv 187G After the marriage they lived together until June, 1878, when the petitioner left her husband and obtained a protection order in the R.M. Court. She lived at Tikokiuo with rer father, and subsequently went into the service of Mr Alex Grant until 1880. She had lived with her husband from that time until October last. There were eight childreu by the marriage. The allegations made by the petitioner were cruelty from shortly after the time they were married until last October, when she had to leave her husband on account of cruelty. He had almost run ever her, and would not stop the horses wheu going to the Show at Hastings from Maraekakaho to allow her to get into the trap. He almoptran over her after asking her to stand at the horses' heads. Hext day he assaulted her, and she was told by him to leave the place, which she did. Caroline Riggir deposed that she was married at the age of 16 to the respondent, her maiden name being Caroline Hall. A month after her marriage she left her husband at Hampden for a week. When she returned they lived together until January, 1878, when she again left him, and went to her father's house, afterwards

going to Mrs A. Grant's, at Takapau, as a general servant. She was there for twoyears. Her husband then came and asked hei to return The reason why she left him the first time was because he struck her, pulled her out of bed by the hair of head, and put her outside the door of her house. It was in winter time, and the frost was on the ground. She had only her night-dregs on, and it was half-past one o'clock in the morning. This arose out of some difficulty about her husband's supper, as he came in at 1.30 a.m , and she had waited from six till ten o'olook for him. The next time, in 1878, he struck her because she had not cleaned a saucepan which was already olean. She went away for two years, but returned, and until October of last year the relations between herself and the respondent were of an unhappy character He committed many acts of cruelty towards her. Respondent used to be a carrier up to 1889, when he gave up the bußinecs and bought a run. On the morning of the last A. and P. Show day they went to the show in a buggy, drawn by

two horses. When the latter were harnessed her husband jumped in and let the horses go. She was at their heads, but had to get out of the way as best she could. He drove somo distance, and the servant girl told him to return for witness. He did return, but he never stopped the buggy, keeping the horses in a trot and she had to scramble in over the wheel. They then went to the Bhow. They had a governess at the time, who intended riding to the Show with the eldest boy, the latter having the key of the house. The trap got home first in the evening, and she was obliged, thiough not having the key, to open one of the windows with a tomahawk and send her boy in to open the door. Did not tell her husband how she got in, as iv the morning he was in a very bad temper, and she feared a revival of the disturbance. Next morning he got up be-

tween five and six o'clock and immediately returned, asking ber if it was she who had smashed down hia house. Told him she had merely opened the window. He struck her with his clenched fist on various parts of ihe body. She was in bed at the time, blooi being drawn from behind one of her ears, and also from the calf of her leg, where the skin had come off through hi* finger nails. He then pulled her out of bed and told her to dear out of the house at

once. Her eldest boy happened to come in at the time she was being dragged from bed. Miss Burnett, the governess, heard the noise and interfered. She came in, and her husband ran out as SJon as he saw the eldest boy there. The same day she left the house, and wfcnt to Maraekakaho to the accommodation house. She was accompanied by Miss Burnett and the four children she had with ber now. They had lived seven miles from Maraekakaho. Stayed three days there and then came to Napier. The effect of her band's conduct was suoh as to put her'inl dread of her life. To Mr Cornford: Left the place last October, because she was afraid to stay. He wantedher to go, and she went, ihe marks on her body were received when she was in bed, and not through falling on the floor. She was riled at the time; it was very seldom she was so, because she never answered him. She had heard that her husband was willing that there should be a separation; further, that although she had an "angelic" temper, he was willing to

make her an allowance. To his Honor: After the row her husband had his breakfast and drove to Hastings. He was in his sober senses, for he had not taken intoxicating drink _ for seven years. Never gave him provocation Why did Miss Burnett go f—Well, he gave her a quarter of an hour to clear out, and I went with. her.

There seems to have been a lull for nearly six years before this?— Yes, but he was continually threatening me. You have become the mother of six children in that time, though. Surely you were not in danger of your life all that

time ? Jessie Burnett, governess, deposed that she had acted in that capacity to the family of last witness for sixteen months. Mr and Mrs Riggir lived very unhappily together. Counsel: Who was the angel, and who was the other thing. Witness: Well, Mrs Riggir was the angel, and he was the other thing. What kind of a man is he ?—Well, he had a vile temper. I don't know much about men, but 1 think he is the worst I have ever known.

What was his conduct towards his wife ?

—He cursed and swore at her in front of anyone, and never called her by her Christian name.

What did he call her ?— " Judy ;" sometimes with adjeotives before it. On tho morning of the 7th October last she heard high words in Mrs Riggir's room, and heard the baby screaming out. and also Mrs Riggir calling out for her. Witness called to the two boys next door to run to their mother. She dressed and asked Mr why he was striking his wife, and ho replied by telling witness to olear out of his house in a quarter of an hour. Phe went into Mrs Riggir's room and saw marks on her body, two of the wounds bleeding. The others turned purple and blue.

To Mr Cornford: Had only onoe interfered with Mr Riggir when he was illusing his wife. Before October she had given a month's notice, and only a fortnight of that period had expired when she was told to leave in a quarter of an hour. Had heard Mr Riggir tell his wife to clear out of the hause, and she made a reply, but did not remember what it was.

Mr Oornford said that he had been instructed with Mr Dinwiddie that the allegations were very highly colored, although there had been differences between them. The respondent did not intend contesting the case ; he desired a separation, but there was no collusion whatever between them in connection with the matter. They did not intend to offer any evidenoe. His Honor said this history of a married life appeared to be a very sad one. There appeared to be no collusion, and both desired a separation. He would grant the decree for judicial separation, with costs. A motion in regard to the custody of the children will be heard'in Chambers.