UNHAPPY MARRIAGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19932, 28 April 1928, Page 14

UNHAPPY MARRIAGE.

WIFE CONTESTS DIVORCE. FEELINGS STILL FRIENDLY. LEGAL ARGUMENT DEFERRED. The hearing of the divorce petition of William George Bright (Mr. Richmond) against Maria Catherine Bright (Mr. Sullivan), on the ground of mutual separation, was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Blair. Mr. Sullivan said the defence of Mrs. Bright would be, first, that there was no mutual separation, but that if the Court held there was then that mutual separation was brought about by the wrongful act of petitioner. If it was shown the separation was brought about by petitioner's wrongful act then it was mandatory on the Court not to grant a decree. The respondent, Mrs. Bright, said that in the earlier part of their married life they were, quite happy together. She had never accused her husband of impropriety with the maid at Westport. There had been flirtation going on in the kitchen when she was very ill in the next room in 1906. Once when the doctor sent most urgently for medicine for her lie was away so long that the doctor said, "My God, man! What kept you so long?" Her husband hardly over saw her when she was ill, and took no interest in her. His sister coming into the home "capped it all."

Respondent said that when she returned from holiday after the illness she found no room prepared for her, and her husband refused to occupy the same room with her. About 1915 her husband became very friendly with a "Mrs. T."

lie used to come home about 4.30 in the morning, saying he had been at the club. Question of Church-going. "I go to church a bit, Mr. Sullivan," continued respondent. "I go on Sunday mornings and in tho evenings too." She was not in tlie habit of going out to church meetings on week nights—only two or three times a year. She contradicted the allegations that she had neglected her home and husband. When her husband joined her at Northcole in 1919 they were very happy for a week, but after that a change came, and lie would hardly speak to her. He would give no reason. He bought a " lovely place" at Epsom worth £2600, and they lived there for about five months, with the same strained relations. She nevor at any time wanted a separation from her husband, but only peace in her home. Petitioner's temper toward her became very nasty. She preferred not to write the language ho had used to her. She used to quarrel with him on account of his coldness and neglect, but had never used any bad language to him. Toward tho end of their stay at Epsom she had "a great row" with him concerning a certain woman. She did not make any accusations, but ho know what she meant. The bringing up of their six children had fallen entirely upon her. After her husband left her in October, 1919, she wrote to him and visited him at Mangere to get him to come back and Other members of the family did the same. About four years ago he started to allow her £4 10s a week, and she was getting that now. She had always felt kindly disposed toward her husband, and wanted him back. She had never instructed a solicitor to bring about a separation. Daughter Criticises Father. Gross-examined by Mr. Richmond witness said that when she was shown a draft of a separation agreement she objected to it. She did not know her husband was wanting a separation. It was about a money allowance, and not about separation that she consulted Mr. Sullivan. She had never set, people to watch her husband. She had made inquiries from neighbours, but that was necessary for her protection. She heard that another woman was taking her name. She wanted to keep petitioner, because he was her husband. Mr. Sullivan : She is hopelessly out-of-date. She should get a divorce every five minutes. Respondent admitted that in 1923 she had laid an information seeking a separation. Her husband was keeping the boy on the farm. She objected to that. The information was not laid because her husband wanted to send the boy to King's College. He had been guilty of cruelty in deserting tier. In reply to His Honor, witness said she did not, know what made her husband leave her. That was what she would like to know. Ho had taken an interest in horses for a good many years, and she was interested in racing, too. Hilda Francis Bright, aged 23. a daughter of petitioner, said she had heard her father use bad language to her mother. She had always thought her father was extremely unkind to her mother, who kept house and looked after them well. She had written to her father remonstrating with him for leaving them. The cause of all the trouble in the home was their father, who seemed to be most unjust, and unkind. The home had been unhappy ever since she could remember. Mr. Sullivan submitted that, on tho facts, there was no mutual agreement to separate between the parties. Even if there were petitioner committed a matrimonial offence before the agreement by his desertion and general neglect. His Honor agreed to hear legal argument next week before giving his decision.