FEILDING DIVORCE CASE.

Manawatu Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 7979, 20 May 1904, Page 3

FEILDING DIVORCE CASE.

An 111-paired Couple.

Ex-Salvationist the Petitioner

In the Supremo Court yesterday, before Sir Hubert Stout, Frederick Flavall, of Feilding, petitioned for a divorco from his wife Mary Jane Flavali, on the ground of desertion. Mr Sandilands appeared for the petitioner, und Mr Prior for respondent. The parties were married in July, 1889, at K»iapoi, and afterwards wont to Feilding. There was one child, a son 1,4 years old. In opening his case petitioner's counsel stated the husband left Feilding in 1899 to travel with a cinematograph. He arranged to leave his wife behind. "While away he received a postcard from Mrs Flavall stating that sho would refuse to resume matrimonial relations with him. When he returnod to Feilding the house they had lived in was untenanted, and his wife was living in a wharejit the rear of a houso occupied by a Mx Pawson, at whoso houso two widows were staying. Respondent did not return to her husband, but subsequently sued him for maintenance. The case, however, was dismissed.

Petitioner went into the box and gave evidence to the above effect. In the course ,of cross-examination counsel asked:

Were you not at one time a mem ber of the Salvation Army ?—Yos.

And were you not expelled from the Army?—No, never. I sent in my resignation, and it was on account of Mrs Flavall.

Was it not because of the way in which you were treating your wife?— No, it was not.

Did you not on one occasion pull your wife across the room by the hair of her head ?—No, what happened was this: It was ten o'clock at night, and I said come on my dear, aren't you ready for bed? Sho wouldn't come, so I went myself. She had not come an hour later, so I went to her, took her by the shoulders, led into the bedroom, and helped her to undress.

Do you know the rules of the Salvation Army ?—Well, I haven't got it all at my finger ends, but I know its doctrines.

Do you know that they consider it a very serious offence for a member of the Army to maltreat any of his family ?

His Honor: I should think any church would! Counsel: Quite so, but what I suggest i» (to petitioner) that you were expelled on account of illtreating your wife ?—lt is not so. Do you remembet your wife having a stillborn child?—Yes. Did you refuse her a doctor ?—No, I didn't.

Did you have a doctor? —No, but we had a midwife and she said there was no necessity for a doctor.

Do you remember locking your wife up in a room ?—No, I never locked her up in lny life —unless I was with her. Did you not have your wife medically examined, with a view to sending her to a lunatic asylum ? —Not for that purpose. Didn't you have her examined in the police court at Feilding before two justices ?—Yes. .

Was it not to try to get her into the arylum ?—No ; but of course if she had been found insane she would have had to go, I suppose.

She was found to be perfectly sane ? —Yes.

Did you not also want to send your wife to a rescue home. —No; I said it would do her good to go there for three months.

When you were travelling with the Biograpb Company did you have a woman with you ?— Yes. Did Mm Flavell object?—No.

Hasn't that woman been residing ■with you ?—Not till after I watched my wife, and heard a man in the whare with her after midnight. Then I got a housekeeper.

Witness admitted feceiviDg the letter produced, in which, said counsel, his wife asked to go back.

Did you not draw two donkeys and send that. as an answer to your wife's sister ? Yes.

His Honor: The letter accuses him of adultery, and you are not alleging that.

Mr Prior said he should' prove persistent cruelty on the part of petitioner, and called respondent. \

Mrs Flavall said that after the first child was born, when, she had been married eighteen months, she had to go into the hospital to be operated on. Her husband never went to see her white she was in the hospital until after the operation, nor let her know anything about the child. She suffered great mental agony in consequence. When the child was two years old her husband "wanted a separation, and accused her of infidelity. She told his friends about him, and they advised her to take no notice, as it was "a mania of his." She was washing on one occasion, she said, when her husband came in quietly and gave her a tremendous blow behind the head. At another time she was suffering terribly L*om neuralgia when he told her he would have her put in the asylum. One night he asked her to go for a walk. They went out and came to the Salvation Army barracks. He went inside, and she reminded him that he had asked her to go for a walk. " Where else should I take you?/- he retorted. Then he " gave his testimony" in the barracks, •nd they returned home. At the house, said respondent, he dragged her all round the dining room and into the bedroom, where he pressed her head against the wall as closely as he could. He repeated the performance the next night. When she went to stay at Pawson's, the latter had his married sister living with him. She wrote offering to go back to her husband if, he would allow her to bo mistress in her own house, as, when she was with him, she ■" could not ask a friend in to have a cup of tea without asking his permission." "When she applied in the Court for maintenance, the Magistrate told her to go back to her husband. She went to bis house about four years ago, with a view to living with him again, but he slammed the door in her face.

Hiß Honor: Well, why do you object to'a separation ?—Because I hope that before he dies he will see the folly of his Jife.

. Counsel: If proper arrangements were made for your maintenance would you agree to a separation ?—I don't like the idea of being separated for life.

Cross-examined, respondent was questioned as to the visit paid to petitioner to uk him to have her back. She did not speak to him to offer to go back becausa he looked so fierce when he opened the door, and frightened her. *4 He looks very nice now," she added, *' but when he opened the door he looked like a fiend."

J. F. Sutherland, butcher, Feilding, stated that on one occasion, some years •go, Mrs Flavell rushed into his house, with her baby in her arms, and said her husband wanted to kill her. It was a wild, rough night, raining heavily. The baby had no •hoes on, »nd was wet and was crying. Mrs Flavall said: " Hide me, hide me, Mr Flavall is going to slay me." Witness conducted her across wet, sloppy paddocks to a neighbour, Mrs S. Pearson, as h« had nowhere to put her. Meeting the husband subsequently, reference was made to the matter, and Flavall said : >' Don't you know she's a lunatic ?" "Witness replied that he did not consider she was.

, Corroborative evidence was given by Sirs S. Pearson.

Mrs Boscher stated that on an occasion nine or ten years ago she went to the Flavall's house and found Mrs Flavall locked up in a sitting room. After a time Mr Flavall opened the door, and witness found the wife sitting shivering. It was a cold winter's day, but there was no fire in the room; Mrs Flavall was not sufficiently clothed, and said she had had no breakfast. Witness also alleged that petitioner, when the parties lived together, did not keep the house sufficiently supplied with the necessaries ox lifeAt this point His Honour said it was quite cleat that the parties could never live together again. Therefore, he did not see the use of maintaining a tie that could never be natural again. In such .cases as this where no misconduct was proved or alleged, he did not grant a ■divorce without making Bome allowance Hot the wife, in this case especially, as the respondent was getting old. At present his impression was that the evidence called had not been of much corroboration on the point at issue. However, he would go through the .evidence, and Mr Prior couldj^in the meantime, file a petition for' imony. JPoisibly the parties could come to an -agreement as to the amount, but if not, Jhe would endeavour to stay in Palmeraton for an hour or two on his return from WaDganui. In the meantime his decision was reserved.