DISPUTING COUPLES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15521, 31 January 1914, Page 7

DISPUTING COUPLES.

TROUBLES TOLD IN COURT.

! WIFE'S MANY ALLEGATIONS.

" COLD BATHS AND HARD KNOCKS."

" I hadn't seen him more than six times before I married him. It was all done by correspondence," said Ethel May Pickup (Mr. Denniston) when giving evidence before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., yesterday, in regard to an information alleging that her husband, William John Pickup (Mr. Lundon), had failed to maintain her and her child and intended to leave the country. The husband owns a' farm in Whangarei.

" I had only been married a week," she continued, " when he said I was crying for the boys I left behind me. Down in the King Country, about three years ago, he came home once and found me crying as the result of a nervous breakdown. He said he had seen a doctor, who- had told him to give me cold baths, and then and there he dragged me outside, stripped off my night-clothes, and half-drowned me in, a tub of water. He left me outside for two hours, going to bed himself, and then came out and suggested I might like to come inside. Last Christmas morning he' got angry because I hadn't made the porridge. He threw the water on the floor and bumped my head in it. Then he threw the cocoa out of his cup into my face. I left Whangarei after borrowing some money, and came to Auckland. I will never go back to him, never not if I have to starve in the gutter." Mr. Lundon : Listen to this little note written by_,you : " This is to certify that I love another man.','

Complainant: Yes, that's one of the things he forced me to write. Mr. Lundon : la it nob a fact that he had to chastise a man in your presence? Complainant: 'He has chastised dozens of men 5 anyone he saw me talking to. The father of complainant stated that there was nothing to prevent the two living together as far as he knew. The cause of the trouble would appear to have been the temper of his daughter. ** The defendant maintained that his wife had an ungovernable temper. The present occasion was the ninth or tenth time she had left her home and, as always before, she had left the child with him. On the first occasion the child could not walk, and she had left it wrapped in a shawl in a paddock. On every occasion he.had done his best to find her. In the present instance he had not the slightest idea of leaving New Zealand, and, as a matter of fact, he had been arrested on his way to the Wliangarei steamer, and had a return ticket in his pocket at the time.. His home at Whangarei was ■ waiting for his wife if she would behave in a reasonable manner. •.>-.-. . ;,,;:, ',■,'•.s .'"•

Under cross-examisation defendant said he had struck his wife only once. That was in Palmerston North, when he' believed she needed correction on account of what he believed to.be her. irregular behaviour. There . was no truth at «11 in the tale about the cold baths. His credit, he added, had been pledged by his wife unknown to him-

The magistrate remarked that the case seemed one for a settlement of some description, but' the question'was whether, in, the circumstances, the husband should bo called upon to maintain his wife. He was not satisfied to take the wife's statement as absolutely correct; but, apart from any legal liability, he felt the husband might make Some allowance to his V, wife "' upon ■ | specified conditions. .- - After further discussion the matter was ! adjourned sine die to enable the parties to discuss the situation. ":'■; S - "'- IK FEAR FOB HER LIFE, '.- '. THE TARGET FOR AN -AXE. :"; Fear for her life was- expressed by Ida Mary Murray, lately of Henderson (Mr. Matthews), who applied to Mr." C. 0. Kettle to issue , separation and maintenance orders against her husband, '■ John Francis Murray. The grounds put forward in support of the application were persistent cruelty and habitual drunkenness. The complainant stated that she married Murray just over 12 years ago.• In 1906 a separation was agreed upon,- but later, she took him back again. Two days after his return he came home drunk and struck her. After that he used to strike her at times even when sober. More recently" he had thrown an axe at her when drunk, while a fortnight before Christmas he had thrown vases of flowers at her. "On Christinas Eve he came home mad drunk," she continued. . "He smashed a glass door and took off his coat, saying he was going, to do for me. Then he, went for the' axe so that he.might chop me up. I ram away in fear for: my-life.' Since then I have not been back to him."

The defendant, who objected to taking the ordinary oath, and therefore made the alternative affirmation, said that money had been the cause of the troubles between. himself and his wife. Owing to her bad 1 management she had incurred debts everywhere and the continual appearance of the bills had driven him .to take whatever drink he had consumed. Personally he had no recollection of what took place on Christmas Eve, but when he awoke on Christmas morning he found his wife and children gone. The magistrate made the order for separation, and ordered defendant to pay £1 5s per week towards the maintenance of nis' wife and five children. The complainant promised that if her husband's conduct unproved she would have the orders cancelled. Defendant was convicted on the charge of failing, without reasonable excuse, to maintain his : wife and children, and was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon.