A FARMER’S WIFE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 2 April 1927, Page 5

A FARMER’S WIFE.

ALLEGATIONS OF CRUELTY. IN TARANAKI COWSHEDS. (BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.' CHRISTCHURCH, March 31. Allegations of a. woman’s overwork and hardships on a Taranaki dairy farm were made yesterday in the Supreme Court, when Mr. Justice Alpers heard a disputeohetween husband and wife.

Eleanor Elizabeth Smith, Christchurch, claimed £495 4s 3d from her husband Herbert Francis Smith, Taiporohenui, near Hawera, farmer. She alleged that in 1918 she lodged a complaint against him in the Magistate’-s Court on the ground that he had failed to provide her with an adequate maintenance, and she applied for a maintenance order. She accepted an offer to pay £1 10s a week fo’r abandoning her complaint. .She accepted the offer.. He paid until August 30, 1920, but failed to do so after that date. The defence was that Mrs Smith left Smith on her own free will, and had been living apart from him against his wish. He alleged that he had a home Teady for her, and was anxious that she should resume cohabitation. The magistrate, he stated, had dismissed her claim for maintainance ; and she had appealed against that decision. The case came up as a claim by Airs Smith, and as an appeal by her against the decision of the magistrate, Air H. P. La wry. The appeal was; heard first-. Air. Hunter appeared for Mrs Smith, and Mr Sim for Smith.

Air. Hunter said that the parties were married in 1913. Smith took a farm at Awatuna, Taranaki. He struck his wife, went home drunk, and was abusive, and she was grossly overOn the farm 70 cows were milked morning and evening, and sometimes about 70 calves were fed. Sue arose at 4 a.m., and worked until 9 p.m. Getting into bad health, she had to undergo a severe operation. His Honour: For- appendicitis?

Mr Hunter said that, it was for something more troublesome. Smith required lier to resume work before she was well able to do it, and she became partially paralysed. She came to Canterbury, to live with her two married sisters, on whose- charity she depended. Smith, under his father’s will, had come into an interest amounting to £3, 00. Mrs Smith’s sisters felt that they liad maintained her long enough. “He treated me very cruel,” Mrs. Smith said. “He doubled up his fists and hit me. He was so cruel I daren’t speak up for myself in any shape of form.” Mr Sim .said that the acts of cruelty were denied by a series of witnesses on -oin mission. His Honour said that when allegations of cruelty seven years old were made by a woman in ill health, and in Mrs. Smith’s eircum stances, .they should be scrutinised very carefully. Grievances of that nature grew under a sense of injury. When Air Sim asked Airs -Smith if her husband did not behave affectionately to her in the house she said: “Out in the cowshed sometimes you would see how affectionate he was. He sometimes came home drunk, and could not quarrel with anybody and puucihed the wall.”

Air Sim: “Witnesses say you didn’t work harder than the average farmer’s wife.” —“1 worked harder than my strength justified.” Robert G. Moloney, clerk in the Public Trust Office, Christchurch, called by Air Hunter, said that Smith had onethird interest in the residuary estate or his father. Smith’s, share was worth £3500. He received £llOO of it. _ Air Sim said that there was evidence that- Airs Smith had lieen subjected to delusions in regard to her husband’s treatment of her. People about- their home said that they were a ‘‘sloppy couple.” She told her relatives harrowing tales, but it was significant that they were not mentioned in the summons in the Court proceedings. Smith alleged that she had funnv ideas. Her allegation that she was driven like a slave in the cow-byre was tlio statement of a woman suffering from delusions. His Honour said that- much fuller evidence was before the court- than had been before the Alagistrate, whose decision on tlie evidence, very probably, was the- right one. Airs Smith really was under the belief that her husband bad been unkind to her. His> Honour f elt that the proper course was to refer tlie matter back to the lower court with instructions to make an order against- Smith for 30s a week maintenance. Airs Smith, no doubt, could arrange to pay a £1 a week to -her sisters and have 10-s for other expenses.