HOUSEWIFE’S DUTIES

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12250, 23 September 1925, Page 3

HOUSEWIFE’S DUTIES

SHOULD SHE MAKE JAM ? HUSBAND’S REASONS FOR DIVORCE SECOND WOMAN IN CASE The domestic industry of making jam and pickles was the beginning of the end of a life of matrimonial bliss, according to Alfred John Farquliar. a telegraphist of Wellington, who sought a divorce from his wife, Margaret Lucy Farquliar, on the ground of separation by mutual consent. Mr Justice MacGregor presided. Mr O. C. Mazengarb appeared for the petitioner, and Mr P. W. Jackson for the respondent. In opening his case, Mr Mazengarb said it was not disputed that the par ties had been living apart for the required period, but the respondent contended that the separation was not mutual, and alleged that slie was forced to leave home. On the other hand, it was contended by the petitioner that the separation was by mutual consent, though it had not been put in writing. Counsel said he proposed to show that all the elements of a separation by mutual consent were present. HAPPY BEGINNING The parties were married on March 31st, 1909, and there were four children. The marriage from the beginning was not a happy one. In 1918 the respondent commenced a little trading in the making -of jam and pickles, and disposed of the goods in the neighbourhood. Petitioner objected to his wife engaging in trade,- because he considered there was no need for her to do so as he was drawing a salary of about £320 per annum from a good position in the Post Office. His wife, however, insisted on her trading, in defiance of his wishes. In May, 1920, respondent said she was going to leave the petitioner, and would not have the continued bickering. Petitioner replied that he would not put up a finger to stop her. It was arranged that his wife should take certain furniture with her, and she ultimately left and went into rooms. Petitioner gave evidence along the lines indicated by counsel. Mr Mazengarb: “Is it true that in 1922 for some little period you lived with another lady?”—“Quite correct.” His Honour: “We will call her Miss X.. I think.” Witness said he had never threatened his wife or done her bodily harm. His reason for getting his divorce was to remarry and make a home for hia four children, who were at present in charitable institutions. In reply to Mr Jackson, witness said that just before he was married he went to Mr Wilford and asked him for his opinion because of the strange manner in which his wife had been acting. She had been a good wife except for trouble oyer trivial matters. Witness said that Miss “X.” 'came to his house in December, 1918, at Mrs Farquhar’s arrangement. Miss “X.” worked with witness, and she went to stay at the house to recover from influenza. She was then about 16. She had been brought to the house simply to recover from her illness, and stayed a good period. He had become infatuated with her; she had never failed him as a friend. ' Mr Jackson: “You would deprive Mrs Farquhar of her children, take them home, and marry Miss “X.” ? “Yes.” MISS X IN THE BOX Miss “X” proved to be an attractive looking young woman, who gave her occupation as that of a cook. She stated that Sir and Mrs Farquhar had both asked her to stay with them during her illness. Mr Jackson: Did you regard Mr Farquhar as your lover then? Witness: No, I had a sweetheart at the time. Yon wish to become Mrs Farquhar P —lf this is possible. You wish to take Mrs Farquhar’* children?—Yes. You think that is reasonable and correct?—Yes. Witness 6aid that she had bought a House from the petitioner whom Ghe had lent £IOB. Mr Jackson: Where did you get the money? Witness: I saved it up in one year. Mr Jackson: How much did you get? Witness: £2 5b per week. How did you come to lend Mr Far* quhar the money?—Because of the natural affection between us. Have you no regard for Mrs Farquhar? —Yes. Do you think I’m callous P Mr Jackson: I think you are the most callous girl I have ever seen. •Mr Jackson submitted that the evidence for a divoroe on the grounds of mutual separation had not been satisfactory. His Honour: I am hound to hear both sides. Mr Jackson: It is a well-known maxim that people coming to this court for assistance must come with their hands clean. I submit that petitioner has not done this. RESPONDENT’S CASE Margaret Lucy Farquhar said that up to 1918 she had lived on the best of terms with her husband whom she had regarded as one of the best of men. and devoted to his children. She stated that when slie first began making jam he had not raised anv, objections, but had assisted her in the washing and the labelling of the bottles. She first knew of Miss “X” when petitioner said that there was a girl at the office who gazed at him lovingly and looked as if she would like a home. He asked that the girl live with them, but she had flot answered to this request. Mr Jackson: Up to 1920 you did not no+Ve anything wrong? Witness: No. , How did you come to leave your home? —He told me he had married the wrong woman. He said: “I will nut you out of the house by rod oi fist.” Mr Jackson: You were compelled tc leave the house? Witness: Yes. After the first of the croes-exnmina-tion of the respondent the case was adjourned till this morning.