FOWLS COME BETWEEN MAN AND WIFE

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 184, 6 August 1938, Page 2

FOWLS COME BETWEEN MAN AND WIFE

Unique Cause of Divorce Proceedings

How a husband's penchant fpr kftep* ing fowls resulted in his wife leaving home was related in the Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday when Kenneth Henry Nethercot Mouldey, gardener, of Palmerston North (Mr. G. Crossley) sought divorce from Vera Mouldey (Mr, T. F. Relling), also of Palmerston North, on the grounds of desertion.

Respondent denied the desertion and in a alleged failure to maintain. The object was tq secure the divorce on her petition because of the effect it would have on the question of maintenance.

In evidence the husband said he married Vera Rye on December 23, 1930. He was then 31 years of ago and his earnings were in the vicinity of £3 a week. On the suggestion of his wife and her mother, it was arranged that they should live with her parents, paying £2 a week board. After three months her mother wanted to raise the board but he decided it would be cheaper to Tent rooms or a house. He located a plaee but his wife would not entertain it as it was too far away from her mother who wms of the same opinion. Finally he located a house in a suitable locality and they went to live there. It was not a very flash place but he got to work on the garden and with the help of his wife re-papered some of the rooms. They were on the best of relations. Petitioner said the home was suitably provided with furniture and utensils. It was very hard to get respondent away from her mother's home and it was on rare occasions that they visited friends together. There had been no shortage of food nor had bis wife complained of want of money. He often had wished she had been more outspoken and had confided more with him rather than with her parents She was inclined to be morose and would not talk. On June 19, 1931, he and his wfie visited her mother for the evening and everybody was happy, yet on that day his wife had instituted separation and maintenance proceedings. His Honour (to counsel): Do you mean to say the wife had taken steps for a separation and the husband knew nothing about it? That they even went visiting that very night? Mr. Crossley: It seems extraordinary but a fact nevertheless.

His Honour: Most extraordinary. Petitioner said that the following day (June 20) he went to work after kissing his wife goodbye as usual. When he came homo for dinner he discovered everything gone including his wife. He had to borrow crockery and blankets from a friend that night. He set off for the mother’s place but met both of them on the way. He asked respondent why she had gone, getting no reply. It was the mother who informed him she was going to take her back home. Subsequently he visited his wife on several occasions with the idea of trying to get her to return, but he could never get the chance of speaking to her alotie. For three months ho kept the house rented, sleeping on tho floor all that time. Respondent proceeded with the separation proceedings but they were dismissed without his having to give evidence. Petitioner produced correspondence which had passed between his solicitors and his wife’s solocitors, regarding efforts at reconciliation.

His Honour (to counsel): Can you point out in the correspondence anything to suggest failure to maintain? Mr. Crossley: No, I cannot.

His Honour: Had there been failure I would have thought it would have been mentioned.

Petitioner added that once he managed to get his wife alone to ask her why she had left him and her only reply was “I don’t know.” fie had kepi on asking that question of her till he was sick and tired or so doing. Re had even gone to the vicar who had married them, asking him to try and persuade her to return. Whether the vicar did so he did not know.

Answering Mr. Relling, petitioner admitted that his wife objected to his keeping prize poultry in a lumber room of the house overnight at show time. His Honour: I don't want to know about poultry. Did you fail to maintain your wife?

Petitioner: No sir. Mouldey denied all knowledge of his wife’s mother sending food around. His wife never informed him of it, it it was a fact. Ho had wished she would talk to him more—that was on.: of the troubles. Since his wife left him ho had not provided for her, acting on instructions. His wife had Baid he must choose between her and th« poultry and he did not see why he should give up the fowls at a time when ho had established a reputation with them and was on tho point of making a profit out of them. His Honour: Did your wife ever complain of not having sufficient of your company ? Witness: No.

Counsel: Wasn’t your wife’s oue complaint that you were spending more on your poultry than you could afford?

Petitioner admitted that she had complained. His Honour: Ho would be the better judge of that. Counsel: Didn’t tho whole fataily want you to give up the birds? Petitioner; They all did. Counsel: Because it was preventing you from getting on your foet. Witness denied that allegation. Answering his Honour, petitioner said he had no resources now to take his wife back if she were willing to come.

Counsel: And it has been your poultry that has kept you poor. Petitioner said he was trying to establish a name for his birds and the disagreement over the poultry was the deciding factor in the wife deciding go her way and ho go his.

His Honour: Then the reason for your wife not returning was not because you failed to maintain her but because you would not give up the poultry*

Witness: That is correct.

His Honour (to counsel): Please show mo some just cause for the wife leaving. So far you haven’t. Shortly afterwards Mr. Crossley objected to Mr. Relling bringing up matters irrelevant to the allegations of desertion and the cross-petition of failure to maintain, his Honour commenting that time and again he had also drawn counsel’s attention to the same matter. M Mr. Relling is making bricks without straw,” added his Honour. Mr. Relling: I am sorry if I am taking up the time of the Court. His Honour: Oh, the Court doesn’t mind its time being taken up but I think you are exceeding the limit. Your zeal in your client’s interest is very commendable, but it can be carried to excess.

To Mr. Crossley petitioner said that his wedding present to his wife had been an insurance policy in her name. Addressing his Honour on respondent’s case, Mr. Relling said ho could See ho aud his Honour were at crosspurposes. Each was looking at the case from a different anglo and he wanted the Court to see his viewpoint of the case.

llis Honour: I didn’t know you had one, to be quite frank. I want you to show me that this man failed to adequately maintain his wife, thus causing her to leave him.

Counsel said there was the condition of tho house.

His Honour: What did she expect when he only got £3 a week. Even if he was spending money on poultry he Was entitled to do so. He might have made a great success of it. Suppose a man was spending money developing a patent, it would be a pity to stop him. What I want proof of is whether she had “just cause” for leaving him. Can you displace his evidence that she didn’t.

Counsel said that if he had used the money he earned in a reasonable way, the wife would have been adequately maintained.

Hip Honour: Don’t you think it Would have been fair for her to have told him she was going to take separation proceedings? Instead of that he gets a bolt from the blue. Counsel considered Mrs. Mouldey was justified in leaving her home, even if temporarily, considering the house she was in.

His Honour: Your whole case, then, is that he starved his wife to feed his fowls.

In evidence respondent said that during the first three months of their marriage things were not so bad though there were a few arguments. Then there came a climax when petitioner was ordered out following a row with one of her brothers. They secured a house in Main street, her mother lending a bed, two old blankets, blinds and two sets of curtains. Petitioner took a table and two chairs he had at his batch and there was an old cane chair and wardrobe in the house. That comprised practically all the chattels. His Honour: Why didn’t your hus band get more furniture? Was it because he had no money*? Respondent agreed. His Honour: You knew he had no money when you married him? Respondent: He was getting 14s a day. She aded that she never had moro than 8s to Joa a week with which to buy food and never had a square meal all the three months she lived with petitioner in Main street, except when she went home at week-ends. Her husband bought the best of everything for the fowls which cost more than the household did. She had repeatedly asked him to give up the fowls and finally one thing led to another and he told her to go.

Ilis Honour: He left because he told you to go?—Yes. Ilis Honour: And not because he failed to maintain you?

Respondent: He said he was tired of working for me.

Answering further questions respondent said another reason for leaving was because she needed looking after and she was afraid to bring a doctor into the house. Her mother supplied her with things she needed but she never told petitioner. Ho didn’t pro vide her with any clothes —not even a pair of stockings. His Honour: He didn’t have much chance. They only lived together six months. A bride usually doesn’t need much in the way of clothes for a long while.

Respondent said that when she left home she did not tell her husband of her intentions.

His Honour: You left him to find it out.

Mrs. Mouldey detailed discussions with petitioner regarding a future home-making, stating that it was a condition that lie had to give up his poultry. She would have been satisfied with just one furnished room, and would have been prepared to go to work to help things along. Counsel: You were prepared under those conditions to return? —Yes. His Honour: Oh no. The fowls had to go. You mustn’t forget that. She considered the fowls had been the cause of all the trouble. One day petitioner came home with four bantams instead of his wages. The show birds he kept in a back bedroom. When her mother came for afternoon tea, she had to bring it with her. She did not tell her husband anything because she was afraid of his temper. Answering Mr. Crossley respondent admitted that she had returned through the post to her husband, one of his letters apparently unopened. The fact was, however, that she had steamed it open. His Honour: That is very naughty of you. You wanted to deceive your husband and make his believe you hadn't opened it?—Yes. Mr. Crossley proceeded to test respondent as to the contents of the home in Main street and presented her with a list of their wedding presents. His Honour: The description we have of Mother fiubbard's cupboard isn’t in it compared with this list. There are 51 items.

Mr. Crossley: You say the home was empty but what did you do to help things along?

Respondent: I bright my own things. Mrs. I. A. Moare, mother of respondent, said it was a family row and not her wanting to raise the board that had resulted in petitioner and his wife leaving her place. For the house in Main

street Mouldey only provided two mats and two brooms.

fib Honour; Did you ever tell your son-in-law he was treating your daughter shamefully?—Yes.

His Honour: It is a pity he wasn’t :ross-examinod on that.

Witness declared that she had lent a bed to them but only for a time as there was a mortgage on it. She and her husband had done all they could to bring the pair together again.

This concluded the evidence,

His Honour intimated that he did not want to hear counsel on the facts but would bo prepared to listen to any legal argument. Mr. Relling; The case resolves itself into a fairly simple question.

Ilis Honour; It has been all along,

Counsel declared that Mrs. Mouldey had found herself in a desperate position and she had done what Qti women out of 100 would have done.

Ilis Honour: Do you suggest she was justified in walking out and not telling her husband 1

Counsel: Yes. Bhe said she was afraid of him. His Honour said he did not want to hear Mr. Crossley. On the evidence he found as a fact that on or about June 20, 1931, the wife wilfully deserted her husband without just cause and for six years continued to desert him without just cause. There would be a decree nisi for Mouldey, to be made absolute at the expiration of 3 months. Regarding the petition of Mrs. Mouldey she had failed to prove that her husband had failed to provide her with maintenance. Being without maintenance was entirely her own fault. She had merried a poor man and without a word to him she had walked out. Further tbau that, before she loft she had taken

steps for a separation order against him. The cross-petition would be dismissed.