UNHAPPY MARRIAGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19931, 27 April 1928, Page 14

UNHAPPY MARRIAGE.

HUSBAND SEEKS DIVORCE. "CHURCH FIRST, HOME LAST." MUTUAL SEPARATION ALLEGED.

Some unusual features were disclosed in a defended divorce petition heard before Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court yesterday. The petitioner was William George Bright (Mr. Richmond), and the respondent Maria Catherine Bright (Mr. Sullivan).

The parties were married in Westport on May 30, 1899, and lived in Westport and Auckland. There were seven children of the marriage, six of whom were now living. The ground of the petition was mutual separation since July, 1920, but respondent denied that such separation had been in force, and in tho alternative said the separation was due to the wrongful conduct of the petitioner toward her.

At the close of tho petitioner's case His Honor adjourned the hearing until this morning to consider whether on the evidence there had been mutual separation. There was also tho point raised by Mr. Sullivan that oven if there had been mutual separation, it was brought about by the wrongful act of petitioner in deserting his wife, and ho was therefore not entitled to a decree.

Petitioner's Allegations. Mr. Richmond said that in July, 1920, relations between the parties, which had not been happy, became less so,, and the homo was an exceedingly unhappy one. The husband alleged ho could not get on with his wife. He alleged nothing against the propriety of her conduct, but said she was very extravagant, neglected her home, and paid far more attention to religious than to domestic matters. When petitioner left his wife in .1920 he provided liberal maintenance in accordance with his means. In July, 1920, his wife consulted Mr. Sullivan, who drew up a separation agreement, which was mutually agreed upon, but not signed. Tho parties had been living apart, and the petitioner had been observing the conditions of the agreement ever since.*,- " Put Me in Gaol."

The petitioner said his wifo kept the house in a stylish and extravagant mannet', and placed him heavily in debt. His protests had no effect. His wifo did not look after him and the homo satisfactorily. Ho carried on business as a jeweller, and sometimes when he came home from travelling ho would find his wife and children away at church, and ho would have to get his own tea. She was a niomber of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was a case of church first ar-d home last. The position became so acuto that if he had been faced with tlio alternative of going to gaol or living with his wife lie would have said, "Put me in gaol!"

Eventually in July, 1920, he told her he could not stand it any longer, and was going to leave. She inado no comment whatever. He left his wife and family in a home he had bought them at Heme Bay, and went to Manurewa to a farm. Their bills were sent to him and he paid them by cheque. An agreement of separation was drawn up under his wife's direction in Mr. Sullivan's office, and, at petitioner's suggestion, the allowance to his wife and cmldren was increased from £3 to £4 10s weekly. This amount he paid regularly, but he neglected to sign the deed of separation. She had approached him in the street a few days ago, asking him to come back, but he declined. "A Very Jealous Woman."

Under cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan, witness said ho left his wife in October, 1919, about six months after he came to Auckland from Westport. He denied he had not taken an interest in his children.

His wife had spoken to him about a maid they had, but her complaint was uncalled for. There was a widow in Westport who caused his wife unnecessary jealousy. A short time before ho left his homo his wife spoke to him about a woman in Auckland, but he had often heard that kind of thing before. His wife was a vory jealous woman. He simply could !>ol live with his wife, and that was all about it. Witness was cross-examined about a si-one in Symonds Street, when his wife saw him with a waitress from a city tearooms. He admitted he had driven in a motor-car with this woman. She kept house for him in Newmarket, and bills came to the house addressed to her as "Mrs Bright." . The petitioner said his wife was spending money 011 the racecourses instead of clothing the children. He did, not have any meals with his wife. Much of the trouble in the home had been his wife's unreasonable jealousy. He denied he had lost his temper and thrown a bucket at his wife when ho heard she had consulted a solicitor.

To Mr. Richmond, witness denied any impropriety in his married life prior to the separation, but admitted it afterwards with the housekeeper. Ii is Honor said he had very grave doubts whether the petitioner had established mutual separation. Tho "mutuality" seemed to be all on his side. His Honor adjourned the case to consider the legal position.