MARRIED AT FOURTEEN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18861, 8 November 1924, Page 13

MARRIED AT FOURTEEN.

PITIFUL DOMESTIC TANGLE.

HUSBAND, WIFE, AND CHILD.

AN ARRANGEMENT EFFECTED.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON. Friday.

A pathetic maintenance case was heard this morning when, before Mr. H. A. Young, S.M., a girl of 15. who was married at the age of 14, Linda Slakich, applied for a separation order and maintenance for herself and child against her husband, Ivan Slakich.

In outlining petitioner's case Mr. Tonipkins said that his client was married and was a mother at the age of 14, while she was still attending school. Respondent was a boarder at the house of the girl's father, who, when he learned of the trouble seemed inclined to place the matter in the hands of the police. However, as respondent appeared sorry for what he had done and was anxious to marry the girl, no action was taken. The girl's father, however, was emphatic that, in view of his daughter's age, the couple should not live together until after the lapse of two years. 'Respondent, though he agreed to the terms, allegedly broke his promise and threatened to kill his wife and child, and also the whole family, if his demands were not acceded to.

Evidence along tho lines of counsel's opening was given by tho girl's father and also by the young wife herself. Medical evidence was also given.

For the defence, Mr. Johnson denied the allegations of cruelty and also that a promise had been given by respondent to the girl's father as to non-insistence on his rights.

Respondent gave evidence on the lines indicated by counsel and said he genuinely and sincerely wanted his wife and child to come back to him and would do nothing that would be injurious to their welfare. Respondent fell in with a suggestion of Mr. Tompkins that he should allow his wife to stay with her parents fur three years, the child in the meantime to be placed in a receiving home where he could visit it. The Court adjourned for a few minutes to enable an agreement to be made between the parties and upon the resumption it was announced that Mr. TompKin's suggestion would be acted upon, respondent to pay £1 15s a week for maintenance of his wife* and child. The separation is to remain in force until July 19, 1927, the date of the wife's 18th birthday. Respondent offered no objection to his wife being awarded costs.