MARRIAGE FAILURE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20922, 11 July 1931, Page 13

MARRIAGE FAILURE.

ALLEGATIONS BY WIFE.

SEPARATION ORDER GRANTED.

"AN UNFORTUNATE QUARREL."

" It is most regrettable that the parties concerned could not have settled their disagreement out of Court," remarked Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in giving his decision in the Magistrate's Court-yester-day hi a maintenance case in which unusual allegations were made. A claim for maintenance, separation and guardianship of three children had been brought by Elsie Elizabeth Maude Court, of Kohiniarama (Mr. Hogben), against Robert Harold Court (Mr. Burt), agent, of St. George's Bay Road. Mr. McKean made an order giving Mrs. Court the custody of two of the children, who had been taken from her homo by defendant, and also granted a separation order. The question of maintenance was deferred pending the result of proceedings in the Supreme Court regarding assets, which consist of Government and local body debentures valued at £5050. Mr. McKean expressed the opinion that it had been unwise of plaintiff to make allegations of persistent cruelty on the part of her husband.

" It is to be understood that Mr. and Mrs. Court are in circumstances above the ordinary," said Mr. Hogben. "The debentures are claimed by Mrs. Court, who, thinking it proper that her husband should manage her finances during her stay in a nursing home, handed them to defendant. Court, however, raised an overdraft for the purpose of buying a motor-car and steps had to be taken to prevent him raising further amounts." Husband Takes Two Children. Mrs. Court, counsel proceeded, entered a nursing home, where the third child was born subsequently. Her husband had visited her while she was in the home, but the cider children were kept away. Mrs. Court was worried because she could not see her 10-year-old daughter, but, on going to her residence, she was assaulted by her husband and forcibly removed from the house.

On June 3, while plaintiff was still in the home, Court, engaging a nurse to care for the children, had left with the daughter and had taken a considerable portion of the furniture. He had stopped his wife's credit and had refused liability for her necessary expenses. Further, defendant had gone to Kohimarama in a taxi last Saturday and had taken away Mrs. Court's six-year-old son almost from under her eyes. " Court is of a domineering type and bases his life on military standards," counsel added.

In evidence, Dr. P. Noonan, of Kohimarama, said that domestic estrangement subsequent to the birth of Mrs. Court's third child at the nursing home nad affected her health. In reply to Mr. Burt, witness said Court had behaved as a reasonable husband at the time of the birth of the child. Relations Between the Oouple. Emma Ellen Noon, a nurse, said Mrs. Court had left the nursing home to see her daughter a fortnight and a day after the birth of the child on May 15 and had returned in a distressed state. The next day, small bruises, which could have been caused by the pressure of fingers, had appeared on her arms, but witness was not prepared to describe Court as a cruel man. 1

Mrs. Court said there were only a few pounds left in her savings bank accounts. One one occasion she had given £l7O in two sums to her husband, who had stood over her and compelled her to sign the slips. She had received no money from Court since April 25. Defendant suffered from shell-shock and he had been very excitable during the past four months.

To Mr. Burt, plaintiff admitted that the children were fond of Court, but said the daughter was somewhat afraid of him. In the opinion of Charles Nealie, of St. Heliers Bay, a friend of the family, Mrs. Court's conduct with her children -was sometimes unduly severe, and Mrs. Betty Nealie said she considered that Court had been an excellent husband. Decision of the Magistrate. In explaining the circumstances of Mrs. Court's visit to see her daughter, defendant said his wife/ had arrived unexpectedly and in an excitable condition. It was because of this scene, though he had tried to placate Mrs. Court, that he had left home. The furniture taken was principally -.for office uses. Last Saturday, when he had taken his son away in a taxi, he had returned at midnight to discuss the position, only to find his wife absent'. He did not wish to live with his wife again, but he desired to make reasonable, provision and to retain custody of the children.

Mr. McKean said lie did not consider it satisfactory evidence for Court to assert that he returned at midnight to reach some agreement. Defendant had sufficient opportunity to do that when lie removed his son from the house. No evidence had been produced by the defence to show that Mrs. Court should not have custody of the children. In regard to the unfortunate quarrel, he had no doubt that defendant did as his wife described.

Costs amounting to £2 2s were allowed against defendant.