PATERSON v. PATERSON.

NZ Truth, Issue 443, 13 December 1913, Page 3

PATERSON v. PATERSON.

MRS. MABEL MOVES^OR MAINTENANCE. PATERSQN PREPARED TO FORGIVE BUT NOT FORGft "A Question of Heart," Said His Worship, . . IFrom ."TruthV Auckland Rep.]

' It will be remembered that soon af,ter the famous Paterson v. Paterson divorce case rumors floated • around that the respondent, Mabel Kathleen Paterson, was going to sue the petitioner, William Henry Paterson, for restitution of conjugal rights. "Truth" investigated the rumors on both sides but could get no coniirmation. However, it was able, to announce that Mrs. Paterson was going to sue her husband for maintenance. Punctually at 2.15 p.m-, last Friday week, Lawyer J. R. Reed, ICC... gal* lantly escorted Mabel into the Court. Soon after Paterson arrived with bis trusty defender. Mr. M. G. McGregor. Lawyer Reed announced that the present action was the qutcome cfc the Paterson divorce case heard at the Supreme Court m August last, wh£n a jury had given a verdict for the defendant,. Mrs. Paterson. Before the case came into court, Faterson had paid his wife £3 per week* to keeD the wolt from the door, but since Mr. Justice Edwards gave his judgment on behalf j of Mrs. Paterson her husband, the defendantjn the present action, had failed to maintain her. ! Mr. Reed declared that Mrs. Patorson's health had seriously suffered owing to the divorce proceedings, etc, and that the £2 per week offered by defendant was insufficient to maintain her. m the station she occupied as his wife. Palerson hail ASKED HIS WnUTO RETURN to him and all would be forgiven, but Mrs. Paterson didn't believe the offer was genuine. Further, the home- he offered her was on an island, where the only female society was one servant woman. She would be for weeks cut off from the mainland. ; ■> Mr. McGregor : I am afraid you ai t> very much astray m your facts, Mr. Reed. ' The S.M.: I suppose the whole ques- , lion is one of amount? ■ | Mr. McGregor: Oh! He has asked i her to come back. " • - * I The S.M.: He charged her with adultery ?— Yes. j The S.M.: Do you suggest' that she i should go back when her husband still j believes her to be guilty of adultery? Mr. McGregor: There are plenty of cases where women have gone bac*> I Your Worship has had them m your own Court Ii ts a wife's duty to cohabit with' her Husband.- ♦■ ; The S.M.: If his conduct is such ttjat SHE CANNOT, LIVE WITH HIM. Mr. McGregor: But he lias offered to take her back. The S.M.: Can a woman go back to a man, who still believes her guilty ot adultery? Mr. McGregor: If the offer is a bona fide one . The S.M.: That is the whole question. Is he prepared to say that he believes' her not to-be guilty of adultery? Mr. McGregor: No: he cannot, say that He is prepared to say that he ignores all that. The S.M.: But what Is m his heart?

We must dive into hia heart and And out what he really means. Mr. McGregor: That can only be ascertained by his evidence. Mr. Reed: Ho Id prepared to do anything except pay .nonoy. Mr. McGregor: And she docs not want him: she only wants his money. Tho S.M.: The position Is this. Ho has charged her with adultery and tho jury found her not guilty. Does he still say that notwtthstandlnK the verdict of the jury he still believes her I guilty? Mr. McGregor: We are prepared to ignore these things. The S.M.: Ignore; how <-an a woman live with a man who sUU ocltcves her irullty? Mr. McGregor: But, m ibis case, wo have to consider that the lady behaved with great impropriety. Tho S.M.: I don't want to go Into Supreme Court proceedings. Do you stfn «ay thai a woman «hou!d ro buck to her husband who belloves her guilty of adultery? Mr. McGregor: Yes: if ho treats her properly. Thorc Is no authority to the control*)'. / Tho 'B.M.. pointed out that the fact or tho husband bolng prepared to tako his wife back was no defence, according to tho Act. 1C vho VtifG was suing for maintenance. | Mr. McGregor: Well, if your Worship holds- that. It I* an end to our icaoor Th^o^UM»^«choolraaatoi^AA44]lß

wife at the Island, and if they can, lfve there, so can. a farmer and his wife. Mr. Reed: But they are living on terms of affection. _- - Mr. McGregor: My client is prepared to let bygones, be bygones. The S.M. decided to hear a few words'- from the husband. Willie reckoned Mabel/ was wrong when she said that* the marriage was" a state of bliss.' Mabel recently had threatened to sue for restitution of conjugal rights, and, had she done so, he was prepared to make a new home for her. The S.M.: it is a QUESTION OF THE HEART. In your heart can you satisfy roe that you believe that your wife whs not guilty of adultery? — No; I cannot say that, your Worship. Mr.' McGregor :\ Are you prepared to forgive her? — Yes. Paterson went on to say that on Motiti Island he had a white man and his wife grafting for him, and likewise the White Race was upheld by the schoolmasjter and his wife. Witness owned a launch and it could do the trip to Auckland m. two hours and twenty minutes; He had given up the historic mansion m Waterloo-quad-rant. , " , " Mr. Reed: Your house at Motiti is a big one, is it not, seven cr eight rooms? — Yes. Mr. Reed: You 'knew that your wife had no money? — -I gave her some money. " . ' Yes; you paid her £3 per week till the case came on? — Yes. •> Why didn't you provide your wife with money from August 18? — She wrote to Mr. McGregor asking for' £5 and I offered £2. . Do I understand that' YOU HAVE AN AFFECTION FOR ;* YOUR WIFE? ( — Yes, I have always had an affection jfor Mrs. Paterson. * When . did this affection arise? Was it to-day or yesterday?— No; it was the result of true affection.' Trust and respect? — Yes. Mr. Reed,, K.O interjected that part of n the farcical proceedings boforo a restitution of conjugal rights was claimed was for the claimant to write a letter to the other party, couched m affectionate terms. Probably Peterson was waiting,, for such a letter. The S.M.i. ls that all the evidence? \ Mr. McGregor: Yes; that Is all the evidence 'I can> call; ■ . - : ,:! The S.M.: Can ho* pay £3 a week?v The S.M. : Can you pay your wife £3 a week?— Well, if I have got to I will have to. I could pay, her £2 a week; Paterson further reckoned that it used to cost him £150 to £300 a year to live m town. -The SJrt- said that he was sorry that such a case should have come into the Court. As regards Pateraon's offer to take his wife back, In view of his continued belief m her alleged sin, the question for the Court was, should it compel her to return to him? In his opinion, In view of all the circumstances, Airs. Paterson »vas quite justified m refusing. Uni-jr these circumstances, he must support 'ier. The only question was that of amount, and he (the S.M.) was satisfied defendant was quite able to prirt up £3 a- week. Of course, Mrs. Pateraon could live on less, but this was the case. of a defendant making more than the man earning ten shillings a day. His wife was entitled to more than food and clothing. Therefore, \n order would be made for £3 a week. Mr. Reed applied f«.r past maintenance under tbp Act, since August :8 last. The S.M. worked .the matter out, and finding }t amountrrt to £45 made an order ace irdingly, together with the usual fringe of cost*.