RICH MAN’S WIFE

Evening Star, Issue 19127, 19 December 1925, Page 10

RICH MAN’S WIFE

CLAIM FOR MAIHTENANCE JUDGE OH “ WASHING FAMILY LINEN ” i [Pkr United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, December 15. The amount of maintenance to be paid to his wife by a man nho was slated to have an income ot il.-UU a vear, besides being in possession ot valuable property interests, was the main point involved in an action heard in the Supreme Court to-“ay. Elizabeth Bnvd Miller (Air Singer) petitioned for judicial separation from Robert Miller (Mr A. Moody), alleging that respondent had been guntv or cruelty toward her. in that sines 192 U he bad habitually used offensive and threatening language to her, and had habitually left her without sufficient moans of support. Mr Singer said the fncr.s were peculiar, and also painful. Jbe pri-i tics were first cousins, who were married m Auckland in January. 1920. Respondent was a man of considerable moans, being a partner with his three brothers in a lucrative, gum business. Notwithstanding Airs Miller’s desire to accommodate herself to bis peculiar temperament, there had been frequent outbursts o, abuse and insult on bis part. In August of last year respondent finally ordered bis wife out of his house, telling her that if she were not gone by 5 o’clock next day he would return and throw her out, nurl thn-t in no rirm instances would he have her hack. Since then he had not only refused to let her return, but be had resolutely and persistently refused to maintain her. Airs Aliller was practically destitute. and dependent upon the charity of her hnsband’s brothers. There was no suggest.ion of anything improper on either side, hut- it- was clear the parties could not live together. Respondent was a man of extraordinary temperament, and of a remarkable harshness of character. In business be was an absolute autocrat, and the evidence would show that, unless a person in bis employ was prepared to demean himself as a slave, association with him became almost impossible. Petitioner, in her evidence, said that while living in a flat respondent allowed her onlv a pittance for housekeeping. She bad to ask for money whenever she wanted any, and she did not always get it. Once he told her that in one year be had made £IO,OOO. She knew he"had an interest in valuable property in Karangabapo road. Mr Justice Reed said it seemed a pity that family linen should be washed in public. Why, he asked, could not the parties arrange for a private separaMr Singer: Because the husband will not make’ bis wife any and he will not have her back. Petitioner was prepared, added Mr Singer, to accept the decision of any private arbitrator on the question, but the husband refused either to have his wile back or to maintain her. His Honor; But he has to maintain her, of course. Mr Moody said petitioner had been offered, through a solicitor, £4 a week if she would sign a deed of separation. He believed respondent was still prepared to pay £4 a week. The present proceedings were only an attempt to get more than the maximum amount which a magistrate could grant. Mr Singer; That Is not a fair way of putting it. Hero is a man with an income of £1,200 a year and with a largo amount of capital behind him. AVo are prepared to accept £3OO a year. After some further discussion His Honor suggested that counsel should discuss with him in Chambers the question of tho rate of the maintenance allowance. . Counsel accordingly retired with His Honor to his room, and after about a quarter of an hour’s conference, Mr Justice Reed returned to the bench and announced that the case would he adjourned sine die to enable tho parties to arrange the terms of a deed of separation.