“TRIED TO CHOKE ME”

Grey River Argus, 28 July 1925, Page 8

“TRIED TO CHOKE ME”

WIFE’S ALLEGATIONS AGAIN*?’ 1 ’ II L’SBAND. FVMTLY AFFAIRS AIRED IN COURT. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr W. Mehlrum, S.M., Tlanlcr Cyril Haines, who until recently was a'fitter in the N.Z. Railways, was proceeded against by Ills wife, .lane Haines, on the grounds of habitual drunker.', less, persistent cruelty, atrl with failing to provide her with s rltieicnt means of support.

Mr W. McCarthy appeared for com plainant, a>nd Mr W. J. Joyce for de fendant.

Jane Haines, the complainant, sta'.ec that she acid her husband had been m.<rried twenty years. There were fi"e children, three under sixteen years of Three years ago witness took out nroeecdings for maintenance, but at', r some weeks agreement was reached. Every pay night witness drank heavily, read had ill-treated witness for years past. Many times defendant had struck witness, and when in drink had tried to choke her. On May 2nd last defendant came home by the late train and then went out again At 1.30 a.m. witness had to go out <■< (md him. When defendant returned home lie threw witness out the trout door and locked it. 'that was sec en weeks before witness’s youngest ch l J was born. She had not seen her bus baud since that date. Defendant had been paying witness £2 a week. A prohibition order had been issued against defendant three years ago.

To Mr Joyce: Witness had a house of her own in Kumara. It was not purchased out of her husband’s money. One son was working in a mill. Hi had allowed witness £3 one month, and another £5 when the baby was born.

Mr Joyce: What was the nature of your husband ’s ill-treatment? Witness: He tried to choke mo or i one occasion. Mary Haines, a daughter, stated that while living at Ross her L-ithei struck her mother. On another O'-casion about twelve months ago, witness had sei ■.! defendant chase her mother around the house. Defendant only came home on pay Saturdays, and th o .' he was always drunk. To Mr Joyce: Witness worked at tnc Mental Hospital for about eight months. Defendant was always swear ing and throwing things about. Mr Joyce: Two can play at that game. Witness: They could, but they didn't Mr Joyce: Didn't your mother try . hand at it.’ Witness: No, she didn't. , To His Worship: Witness had n*-’. seen her father actually strike her mother except c,n one occasion. He: mother after showed bruises. Hu mother had told witness that defendant had made the bruises. Stanley Haines, a son, fifteen yearof ago, gave evidence to the effect tha. ho had seen his father catch hold of hi mother one day at Kumara. His fatiiei was going to choke his mother. De fendant had struck his mother ami caught hold of her arms. Witness ran around to the front of the house and called for assistance. Defendant Ind told his mother to ‘‘get to 11 out of the house. To Mr Joyce: Defendant came home on the afternoon in question on his motor bicycle. He was 'not, rolling about, but witness supposed he “lad had a couple.” Witness called in a man who had come from Grcymou-li with uefc-iidaiit. .Th? iron told de, fendant ‘‘to stop.” Witness had -iot talked over the evidence hoi was going to give with his mother and sister. (.'onstable Eox, of Kumara, stated that he had often been called into the house of the Haines’. When ho got there it was usually a ‘‘w, rdy war.” When defendant was sober he was a good man, and trouble only occurred rwhen he had drink in. lor the defeme, Mr Joyce said complainant had isiied a ‘‘three clt.'im--1 |iered revolver charge” against defccilavt — -drunkenness, persistent cruelty ■ and failing to maintain. The evidence <-£ the witness, Counsel submitted, fell far short of these charges. Defendant who was a servant in the employ of the Railway Department, had offered to make a home for his wife in Greymouth, but complainant refused to coni’? here. He had been sending his wife £4 a niimtli. Neither complainant:« son nor daughter who wetie good money, had contributed materially to her support. Defendant, Hanlon Cyril Haines, said that he was previously a fitter in the Railway Department, his earnings be ng £lO a fortnight. He allowed hip wif? £5 a fortnight, besides buying clotnes for the children. On one occasion Lis wife had put the police pa him, when there was no occasion for it. Constable Fox had told witness to go home, htv mg been asked to do so by Mrs Haines. Witness was not even in a hot“l. Since that time witness had refused to go home, and had been allowing, her £4 a fortnight since. He had secured a house in Greymouth, but his wife refused to go into it. He was now living in private lodgings in Guinness street.

To Mr McCarthy: He did not prefer to live privately to living with his wife. He did not go into the hotel the night Constable Fox told him to go home, neither did he strike his w.f?. fie could make >no offer to pay his wife any more money, having had to resign from the Railway Department when the summons was served upon him. .If his wife had “gone the right way abort it’’ she would have had more than th? £1 a fortnight. His Woiship: What do you mo,in by “if your wife had gone the right w ;y about it ’’’ Witness: Site refused to come into the house 1 had secured lor her io Greymouth. If she had, she would have got all my money. Now T have got to keep tvjo houses going. His Worship: How do you make tli't out? You are living privately. You are not keeping two homes. Defendant: j consider that ns rny son is getting more than me and is giving my wife -nenrly till his money, .and .-.'•st; Las a garden which keeps thfeiri all

the year round, T was not called upon to contribute any mere. His Worship: Yem are the father of the children. Continuing, witness seated that lie had resigned from the railways volv.'iitarily. He had never seen a r ■ gulntion prohibiting resignation under circumstances similar to his own. He had no intention of leaving New Z-’i-hi nd. His Worship held that the charges of drunkenness ami persist vat cruelty had net bee.) sustained. However, there was proof that defendant, had not contributed sufficiently to the support of his wife and children, and made, an order for the payment of £2 lbs per week. His Worship also held that complainant was no longer obliged to cohabit with defendant, and was given the custody of the three children, under sixteen yogi’s of age. Costs were enter cd against defejnjtmt,