AT AUCKLAND

NZ Truth, Issue 584, 26 August 1916, Page 6

AT AUCKLAND

HARTLEY v. HARTLEY. A Victim to Drink. After listening to tho dry argument as to whether painters nhould get an extra "bob" or two a week, his Honor would no doubt appreciate the little flutter between Frederick Hartley, and bis wife, Harriet Anno Hartley. Freddy, who applied for divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness, wah re pro- . Rented by Lawyer Fltzherbert, while Harriet had Lawyer "Dicky" Singer to look after her end of tho argument. Tho case was heard boforo a Jury. Freddy said that he married Harriet In IS'J7, at Manchester, England, and tho union had brought forth six chlldren, thrco of whom wero still living. For nine years they Hvod m England, and then hit out for "Uorzone." Prior to this k HARRIET HAD TAKEN TO DRINK, and on arriving. In New Zealand her thirst had developed considerably, and twice she had boen convicted and aent to Pakatoa Inland. In answer to Lawyer Singer, pctltioner said he knew nothing of hlx wife's history before ho married her nnd he had provided many homwi for her. Ho had been before the court for falling to comply with maintenance orders In respect to the children, but ho had never given Harriet cause to complain about him drinking. Albert William Robins said tho Hartleys were living with him In 1911, and Harriet wan constantly drunk, and finally wltnesH hiul to empty them out, an Harriet's habits became too bad. Helena Gray, another one-time landIndy of the Hartleys, gave similar evidence. In opening for respondent, Lawyer Singer mild the wife's downfall was duo to her hunband's fondness for drink, his cruelty nnd neglect, which till contributed to a miserable existence. Harriet, at present a member of the l'ukatoa party, ramo to court In charge of n "Halv'urmy" ofllcfi*. und said that early m her innrrlml llfo Freddy took to "hoo*ln<r" and brought drink homo to hor, t!ncounu;!»K her to iiharc It. Hlnvc they eamo to Now Zouland ho hud never provided v proper homo for j her, «nd nt vnrloun time* Mho had (;»nc jto work, montly In laundries. When nho waw rHi>«K('<l from h<T flrnt. t<*rm on I'ukaton Inland, petitioner tnc»k n two-roomed cotuiK** f*>r her nt I)ov«»n----purt. anU nllowtnl her 10/- a week, bewkltft paying th* rent. Later on ho cenxed paying the rent and Informed her that J sni: must c?o to wouk. j Afior hi* H-^nor had made plain to th» Jury what constitute habitual

ilrunkonncsrt an»l rt<mnrkln« thut lie failed to »if whi-ri* any no^Uu-i nr nii.scpjxlucl on the J«>rt ot pciiUuni-r Imcl hctn jir«»v«>di ««d »Jm> that «Ilvin - « wtiutd n<it trt'v jH-lUUifii'r Iroju r«>hpfinHlbillty for bin wife's tnulruenaneo. and thui n\w could nuiily to tJu* court for ullinuny, ih<? Jury retired, n'lurttJn^ vvry shortly with a verdict for IMMlilonrr. }il« Manor then granted tho dcalrcd decr«r«.