HUSBAND AND WIFE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19719, 19 August 1927, Page 14

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

COMPLEX LEGAL POSITION.

REHEARING OF A CASE. SINISTER INFLUENCE ALLEGED. An unusually complicated legal position was disclosed in an appeal against a Magistrate's Court decision which was heard by Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court yesterday. The appellant was William John Swaysland (Mr. lnder) and the respondent Elsie Laura Swaysland (Mr. Singer). The appellant left her borne in Napier in August, 1925, with a friend, Mrs. Burton. Sho became ill and had a serious operation in Hamilton, from which she has not yet recovered. The wife recently brought a claim against her husband for maintenance, and lie took proceedings at Napier for restitution of conjugal rights. An order for restitution not being complied with the husband had instituted divorce proceedings. In the case of the application by th.-. wife for maintenance the magistrate found that the defendant, her husband, had without reasonable cause failed to provide her with adequate maintenance and that complainant had reasonable cause for refusing or failing to live with her husband on account of her ill-health. The appeal was against this decision and came before the Court in the form of a rehearing. The magistrate found she had reasonable cause for not returning, while the judge made an order for her to return. " No Home or Furniture." Mr. Singer submitted that the husband bad assigned his estate and bad no home or furniture to offer his wife. He had never even sent her her fare to como back. Mrs. Swaysland, who gave her evidence with difficulty, said she did not think her health would permit her to return to her husband Mrs. Burton, with whom she went to Hamilton from Napier, had kept her for the last two years. Witness hoped to help Mrs. Burton in her business, but had been unable to do so. Her husband had not treated her kindly and bad left marks on her throat. Mr. lnder produced a letter written by Mrs. Swaysland frofci Hamilton early in 1926 in which she assured her husband she would certainly come home even if she had to come in an ambulance. The letter was in affectionate terms. His Honor (to witness): Supposing your husband satisfied me that he could provide you with a home would you go back I—l could not work for him and he would not like that. He would knock me about. His Honor: But supposing he were to treat you well ?—But he couldn't treat me well. He has never treated me well and 1 know he won't. He has never wanted me unless 1 could work for him. Alleged Influence Denied. Witness told Mr. lnder thait she had intended leaving for Australia with Mrs. Burton, lut Mrs. Burton was stopped. She would not return to her husband it he offered her a home with his uncle and aunt. The trouble was not that she. had been brought under the influence of Mrs. Burton, tier husband had paid over £4O for goods obtained by her while in Hamilton. His Honor said the question he had to determine practically was whether he would be justified in the present set of circumstances in declining a husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Mr. lnder said his conviction was that Mrs. Burton's influence was the whole cause of the trouble. William John Swaysland said that the married life of his wife and himself had been happy and they had no "rows" until his wife left home for Hamilton. His wife took about £IOO worth of goods fiom his shop m Napier to stock Mrs. Burton s shop in Hamilton He was anxious for his wife to return with him and could find her a home with his uncle. The further hearing of the case was adjourned until to-day.