Husband’s Religion is Not Wife's

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 55, 7 March 1939, Page 8

Husband’s Religion is Not Wife's

STORY OF MATRIMONIAL DIFFICULTIES “So long as he is the guardian of the children, he has the legal right to decide their religiou, but he can’t ram his own religion down his wife’s throat,” commented Mr. H. P. I,awry, S.M., in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday during the hearing g>f a family estrangement. r Tho wife’s story was that she was a Presbyterian, but ten years ago her husband had joined the Plymouth Brethren which had led to differences in the home. The children had gone to the Presbyterian Sunday School till her husband had taken them away to tho school of his own following and they had not liked it. Suffering a nervous breakdown she had gone away for a holiday and his letters to her were full of religious instructions with Bible quotations. While away she had had to work, her husband sending her little iu the way of money. A daughter had been taken away by her to give the child a change and while her husband was willing to send the return train fare for the girl, he would not think of sending hers. On her return she had asked him for housekeeping money which he had promised but when she asked for something for herself, he would turn away and hum a hymn. He was always humming hymns, she said. Ho had tried to get her to join the Plymouth Brethren, but she did not want to.

The Magistrate pointed out to husband’s counsel that his letters to his wife showed that a condition of her return to him must be submission to fcligious exercises and that she must not smoke. (The wife declared from the witness box that smoking had helped ner nervous condition.) His Worship also characterised as *‘moro expressive than words,’’ tho husband’s offer to send the train fare of his daughter, but not that of his wife. All that was offered her was ‘‘an open door.” However, it seemed that there were no difficulties that could not b© overcome. During her evidence the wife stated that her husband provided scanty food for the children. She, herself, had her meals where she was working.

His Worship commented that if such were the case it was not in keeping with the husband’s position and would only suffice to keep them from starving. It was not sufficient these days that a husband should just keep his family fed and housed.

The husband’s counsel said his client was defending the action, as a matter

of principle and not on the question of money. The case was adjourned to allow the parties to try and find a solution to their own difficulties.