OLD COUPLE DISAGREE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17348, 20 December 1919, Page 10

OLD COUPLE DISAGREE.

MARRIED 53 YEARS AGO. "TOOTH AND CLAW" SCENES. SEPARATION, ORDER REFUSED. An unusual separation case, in which the parties had been married for 53 years, was heard by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The application was made by the wife, and was contested by the husband, for whom Mr. Singer appeared. The complainant said her husband was addicted to drink, and he ill-treated her. When Mr. Singer, for the husband, rose to cross-examine her, she said excitedly : "My husband has been telling you falsehoods about me. I want nothing to do with him. I was only a girl when I was married." Mr. Singer : Your husband is 80 years old. Do you expect him to work at his age?He is the laziest man in .New Zealand. I have been a slave ever since I was tied to him. Mr. Singer: I think you had seventeen children?— That is a falsehood. The husband here interjected "There were 16, and you reared eight." The complainant: "You beastly old man; you are not fit to live with." A son of the parties deposed to his father being under the influence of drink and fighting with his mother. He did not think his mother was safe alone in the house with his father. They were better apart, as his father, he feared, was beyond redemption. A woman who had lived in the house also gave evidence. Mr. Singer: Is it true you have suggested to this old couple that you are something in the nature of a witch?— Certainly not. You call me a witch, you will have to prove it. I never said you were a witch. By the way, why do you s call yourself "madam" and not "Mrs?"—l suppose I can call myself what I please. Oh, certainly, Buonaparte, if you prefer. Now, is not this woman's husband an inoffensive old man? —He is a "street angel and a home devil," like many other men. The husband, in evidence, denied his wife's allegation. 'He said he had an argument with her at Napier 30 or 35 years ago, but barring that they were as happy as a man could be with a wife who gave way to bad temper. Asked if he drank, the respondent said : "I will have a glass of beer as long as < 1 can get it. When I cannot get beer I will brew it." He added that he and bis wife got on all right as long as the son was away. It was true he was prohibited four years ago, but it was not needed. The boy was the cause of the trouble. One day he went home and found his things out on the verandah and the door locked. Since then he had lived with his daughter. Questioned regarding ill-treatment of his wife, the"respondent said : "I do not want to have my face scratched by a bad-tem-pered woman, so I have to push-her off. No such thing as her being afraid of me, I can assure you." The complainant here rushed at the wit-ness-box to reach her husband, and was led out of court. A son-in-law of the parties stated that he had' never seen the respondent under the influence of liquor. It was "tooth and claw" when his mother-in-law got excited. The magistrate commented on the con- ' tradictory nature of the evidence. What Had been going on lately had probably been the cafe for many years, but he considered the Court should not interfere, and no order would be made.