SEPARATION CASE.

Grey River Argus, 26 May 1922, Page 3

SEPARATION CASE.

STRAKER v. STRAKER. WESTPORT, May 25. This case of Straker v. Straker, a plea for separation by tho wife, was decided at the local Court. Mrs Straker sworn said she was married in April seven years ago. She had one child. ‘ She had been residing at Ngakawau since here marriage. Her husband was a builder and carpenter. She had been on the best of terms up till the time he left for the North. In April 1921, he left fur Deep Creek. He went temporarily for a holiday. He wrote regularly and affectionately. He sent her about £lO every fortnight. About six months later he changed. He cooled off, and his letters were not so affectionate or frequent. She then went herself to D'eep Creek, but decided not to remove her home from Ngakawau. On this decision he promised to return at Christinas time, but later wired that he could not come, didn’t matter what happened. He then removed to Haveloc::, and she wrote and asked him to come back and sell up and she would leave with him to the North Island. The letter in reply (produced) told her to sell up and keep the proceeds. On the advice of Airs Alexander she went up to see what was the matter. Mr and Mrs Alexander went with her. >Shc did not speak much. Air and Airs Alexander did all the speaking. He got angry and became insulting. He afterwards asked Ivor to come to the hotel, he- wished to see her, but she replied she did not think it was fair after the way he had spoken to her. Her husband always enjoyed good health. Her husband was driving a car for Airs White who owned a motor-garage. He was living in the same house as Airs White. To Air Lovell, (defendant’s solicitor) Her husband did not insist on her going to the North Island. She consulted with her husband and tho latter was satisfied for her to stay. The root of the trouble was not because of her refusal to go to the North Island. She did not know that rumours floated about Ngakawau. i to the effect that her husband Tad a “fancy woman” in the North Island. She did not spread them. Sne could not remember what Airs Alexander said on the occasion of their meeting in Havelock. She did not know if she vilified her husband. Airs Alexander, sister of the defendant, said she. was on the best of terms with Air and Airs Straker and the latter two were an affectionate couple. Airs Straker was good tempered. They had a good home and both worked hard to get it. Air Straker said wh-en he left that ho was going away to “make a cheque.” AKo for tho change from Ngakawau. She (Mrs Alexander) and her husband and Mrs Straker left to seek Air Straker. They found him at Airs White’s, but he refused to come out. They both got angry. Be would give no explanation for tho cooling off. Ho only said “she i knows what she lias done.” Rumours had come to them about Air Straker, the} did not spread them. She did not know that the bone of contention between tho parties was Airs Straker’s refusal to go to the North Island. Mr Lovell said defendant would comply with tho requests of the complainant for maintenance separation and custody of the child. Alagistratc Alaunsell said it would be far more desirable if the couple could make up their minds to live together again. He was sure they could do so. Ho felt inclined to have a private interview with both nnd see what could bo done. The Magistrate suggested adjourning tiw case until the following morning, to give both parties an opportunity to talk it over. Counsel for either side agreed. Tho case was resumed on the following morning. The parties failed to agree and after further ventilation of her grievances Mrs Straker was granted separation and maintenance, also cusfodv of tho child.