DOMESTIC UNHAPPINESS

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 26 January 1933, Page 7

DOMESTIC UNHAPPINESS

WIFE SEEKS SEPARATION CASE IN HAWERA COURT Alleging that defendant had failed or intended to fail to provide her with adequate maintenance, that he had been guilty of persistent cruelty to her, and that he was an habitual inebriate, Margaret Irene Hammond •sought in the Hawe-ra- Magistrate’s Court t-o-day a separation order frpm her husband, Raymond Christopher Hammond, and an order for maintenance. trr -*». K. North appeared for plaintiff and Mr R. J. O’Dea for defendant.

Complainant, in evidence, said she had been married about three years. < Defendant was 24 years of age and witness -was 23 years of age. Matters had gone smoothly in the first two years, but in the last 12 months lier husband had been in the habit of coming home under the influence of liquor and abusing her. On one occasion she had been punched on the nose because she had refused to accompany him to a party. Just before Christmas a young man named Jobson, who .work ed in. the same office as her husband had come to the house with a note Jobson had made allegations concerning her husband and other women and later had attempted to force liis attentions upon her. Nothing improper., had •taken place, -but- Jobson liad offered her £1 not to tell her husband of what had occurred. When Jobson had attempted to force his attentions upon her witness had run out to the gate and had not gone inside again until he had left.

That night her husband had arrived home at about 5.45 p.m. She had told him of Jobson’s -behaviour and had handed him the £1 alleged to have been given to her by Jobson. Later her husband had brought Jobson to the liou.se. Jobson had ait first denied having been intimate with witness, but subsequently had stated that he had. Witness had strenuously denied the allegation. Jobson, had made the statement that he had been intimate with witness after her husband had thrashed him. The thrashing had been administered because Jobson had told witness certain things about her husband, and not because of his statement concerning the alleged intimacy.

The next morning the matter had again been discussed and her husband had accused her of having been intimate with Jobson. He had gone out that night and had not returned until after 2 a.m. He was then drunk and imd picked witness up and put her outside. Witness later had scrambled back through a window and had again gone to bed. Her husband was asleep on the bed, fully dressed. A little over a week ago her husband had left the house, taking his belongings with him.

Replying to Mr O’Dea, complainant sakl that her husband was more often drunk than sober. He was drunk mostly at night. R. M. Sharroek, brother-in-law to complainant, said that during the last 12 months l'«e had on four or five occasions seen defendant very much the worse for liquor. DEFENDANT’S DENIAL.

Defendant denied the allegations of habitual cruelty and drunkenness. Since he had been married he had not been drunk on more than three occasions and never at any time had he been objectionable to his wife or anyone else. On December 22 last he had gone to Stratford. On his return at 5.50 his wife had Informed him of certain events that had occurred m his absence. A man named Jobson, a fellow employee, had been asked to take some money to witness’ wife. His wife had told him that Jobson had forced intimacy upon her. He had immediately left the house in search of Jobson and had brought him back to the house. Jobson had stated that intimacy had occurred with his wife’s consent. Continuing, defendant said lie had hit Jobson on the jaw. He had fallen to the ground and would not get up, so defendant had pulled him to Ins feet and thrashed him. Finally, said witness, his wife had implored him to let Jobson go, and the latter left the house. That night lie and his wife had occupied the same bed, as lie believed that she had not been a- willing party. The next morning iiis wife had told him that she had at first resisted Jobson, but later had consented. The next night lie had ordered liis wife to leave the house and as she would not do- so he had put her out in her nigh! attire. Witness went to bed, but. found the next morning that his wife was still in the house. For the rest of the period up to January 18 they had occupied separate rooms. He had told his wife that he intended to have nothing! more to do with her. Qu January 18 lie bad left the house and liad net. seen her 'until Saturday last. He had formed a definite 'intention not to provide for her. The magistrate (Mr J. H. Salmon) said that although there' was definite evidence of acts of gross cruelty, there was a. long interval between them and the allegation of cruelty would fail. There wore, however, stroiig grounds for belief, that defendant was drinking to excess, and it was disgraceful that he should indulge in drinking bouts to the extent which lie admitted. However, habitual drunkenness was not established. The law was clear that even if the wife were guilty of adultery a husband was not entitled to leave his wife destitute In. this case there was the flimsiest evidence of adultery. Defendant had shown conduct more like that of a. petulant boy rather than that of a. married mail, and after making accusations against his wife had continued to. occupy Hie same house for some weeks. That did not seem to indicate that the allega-

tion of adultery was strongly considered at first, but had been fostered during periods in which defendant had been drinking. A, separation order was granted, together with maintenance at the rate of £1 5s per week.