AN UNUSUAL CASE

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 119, 16 April 1930, Page 6

AN UNUSUAL CASE

ACTION AGAINST HUSBAND.

PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED. Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., presided over .the Magistrate’s Court on Monday afternoon, when Kate Richards sought an order of separation against her husband, Alfred Richards. Mr Fitzherbert appeared for complainant, and Mr Cooper for defendant. “This is rather an.unfortunate case,” stated Mr Fitzherbert, who added that the ages of the parties were 64 and 63 years respectively. Complainant had been bequeathed a property by her mother-in-law . and defendant had used it as a poultry farm, but had contributed nothing to complainant for maintenance, rates, etc. An application was made to Mr Justice Ostler by complainant, who was granted an order for possession under the Married Women’s Property Act. Defendant sold his assets and had since continued to live in the house, paying practically nothing for his keep. Complainant found it impossible to continue to live under the present circumstances. It was alleged that defendant had further been keeping company with another woman. Mr Fitzherbert added that a’considerable amount of dirty.linen was likely to be washed in the proceedings, and ne said that, if defendant .would, leave the house and agree to a separation, complainant was -prepared to leave the matter at that. Mr Cooper said that the parties had been married for forty years. Defendant was a cripple and after an order had been made preventing him from carrying on his occupation of poultry farming, Mr Cooper alleged, an attempt was being made to “fire him out. Mr Fitzherbert stated that in an affidavit to the Supreme Court defendant had stated that he was earning at least £2 10s a Week from his poultry. After the order was made he sold out everything. Mr Cooper: What else could he do? Mr Fitzherbert stated that defendant had been offered the property at a rental of 26s weekly. . “It is a pity if any dirty linen is to be washed in Court,” stated the Magistrate. “The property was left to complainant by defendant’s mother, probably because her son was improvident, but she might not have done so if she had thought her daughter-in-law was going to turn her son out.” H •Mr Cooper submitted that, having acquired control of the property, 00mplainant was endeavouring to turn out defendant. His Worship observed that a separation might operate to the advantage of defendant in obtaining the old age pension, because in that event the property of his wife would not count against him. Mr Cooper stated that there was no wilful failure on the part of defendant to maintain his wife, but pure inability. ■His Worship intimated that all that had to be met was a question of separation, not maintenance. Counsel retired to discuss a settlement. Later, Mr Cooper stated that defendant was willing to agree to a separation order provided he was given a month in which to find some avenue of employment. Mr Fitzherbert said ho wanted an order of th© Court, and the case proceeded. 1

Kate Richards, the complainont, stated that she had been married for forty, years arid there were five children. She had had to “scratch, along as best she could,” with the assistance of the mother of defendant, who had given her; very little help. Latterly, she had been supported by her family, who lived with her. During the; past two years* defendant had contributed nothing to the household expenses, except a little food in the way of meat and fruit. He provided his own milk. His contributions towards expenses would not amount to more than 6s pei week. After an'order was made by Mi Justice-Ostler giving her possession qi the property, defendant sold . his poultry business, despite an offer to rent the premises to him. He had not done a'hand’s turn since the Supreme Court proceedings. He went to races, ’euchre tournaments ‘ and. entertainments, and would not rise in the mornings, doing nothing but read. Complainant said she sought a separation in order to enable her to get money together to pay the rates and maintain the house.

Mr Cooper: Are you still willing to live with him if he pays you 26s a week? —No, not now. He has done nothing but household work. • I have been a slave to him for forty years. - Pearl Richards stated that her mother had principally maintained tllo family on the children’s payments for board. Her father had not adequately maintained the. family, and had only made contributions towards- household expenses, when he received a cheque each quarter. Her mother could not Eay the expenses incidental to the ome. Her father went out three or four times a week and his name figured frequently as a prize winner at euchre tournaments. Witness had seen him take another young lady to dinner in a restaurant. Alfred Richards, junior, also gave evidence. CASE FOR DEFENCE.

Mr Cooper stated that obviously the proceedings had been instituted to get rid of defendant. The position was no different at present from what it had been.' Defendant’s only liability had been towards his wife and he had contributed to the best of his ability. Defendant stated that on account of his health he was unable to do much work. It was incorrect that he had contributed practically nothing towards the house. Since 1921 until 1929 he had spent £392 9s 6d in the house and property. He had no source of income at present, and his total wealth was about £2O. When running the poultry business he had to find about £2 10s a week for expenses before he made any profit. He had spent £llO or £ll2 on the buildings and property during the last twelve months. His trade had fallen off, partly because of the reception which his customers received when they called at the house. He had no means of earning Mr Fitzherbert, witness stated that after the Supreme Court proceedings he had sold ms business and lost all heart, as he did not feel equal to carrying on. He did not deny that he had been taking another woman out. He had lent her £l2 13s. AGREEMENT URGED.

His Worship commented the trouble seemed to be the aftermatn or the Supreme Court application. It was a pity the proceedings had come before the Court. It seemed that defendant had purposely done away with his assets, partly out of spite, However, if he could not work through physical infirmity, he could not only come upon his wife, but his son and daughtor for maintenance, and that was a matter which they ought to consider before turning liini out. It would probably be cheaper for them to put up with him in the house, and not force the issue, oven though part of

the fault may have been on his side. It was a difficult case, for although defendant might have been improvident, he had done something. Mrs Richards should consider the fact that the property had come from her husband’s mother. On the suggestion of the magistrate, the case was adjourned for a month in order that the parties might arrive at an agreement.