REVOLT OF WOMAN

NZ Truth, Issue 818, 16 July 1921, Page 12

REVOLT OF WOMAN

Peculiar Persistent Cruelty

Mrs. Collier's Case Collapses. (From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) A young married couple appeared before Magistrate Bartholomew • at Dunedin Magistrate's Court, m circumstances somewhat unusual, even so far as separation and maintenance eases are concerned. Mrs. Louisa Bellamy Collier, the applicant, was quite a'nice young 1 woman, and the defendant, her husband, Leslie Ernest Collier, a calm and honest young man, who is evidently even yet much devoted to his "bitter" half. The lady, who was represented by Lawyer Calvert, _ applied for separation from her hus- ' band on the grounds of excessivemarital" relations, alleged to be due to defendant's persistent insistence. This allegation was interpreted by the lady and her lawyer as amounting to persistent cruelty, failure to maintain resulting from applicant's departure from her luisband- so as to avoid the alleged cruelty. Lawyer Cook represented the husband, whose defence was a complete denial of the allegations. The case was a long-drawn-out one. the major portion of the affair having be'en stated at Blenheim, where the parties had lived, and where the husband's business is located. The applicant belongs to Dunedin, and resides "here' for the time being. In the. Dunodin Court the taking of the remaining evidence occupied most of an afternoon. Magistrate Bartholomew directed that the court bo cleared, and witnesses brought m as required. The lady left her husband six months after the marriage. » , ' Owing/to the DELICATE NATURE OF THE EA r IDENCE, it is necessary to confine the report of the proceedings to the magistrate's remarks. The complainant. Miss Martin. Elgin -road, Mornington 4; who had resided' with the couple, and with whom Mrs. Collier left when she departed from her husband), Dr. Harrison, Dunedin, and the defendant gave evidence. His Worship said it was a very painful case to deal with. The parties had been married after a very short engagement and. when the glamor of the honeymoon had- worn off , % trouble, ensued, probably because they had not had time, to know each other's temperament, In addition to the wife's evidence, the only witness called i m her support was Miss Martin, -whose evidence really only dealt with' one particular incident. The evidence of Dr. Harrison really meant that her present state of health .concurred with her evidence, but "he could not say it was necessarily attributable to the ill-treatment to which she allege* she was submitted. The evidence taken m Blenheim was entitled to weight, as m such a small place the circumstances would be known to the witnesses. The evidence of Dr. Bennet. Blenheim, was quite inconsistent with hers, and it was more than strange that she had not complained to him of ill-treatment. There was also the evidence of Dr. Adams that her v husband was an abstemious man , and did not indulge m liquor, even at social functions, at which perhaps it might be expected, which seemed to show that he was #• MAN OF SELF-RESTRAINT, to their home life, the evidence taken at Blenheim seemed to show that they were oii exceptionally good, terms. The husband had given his evidence very frankly on the critical points, and when he admitted things freely it left a much better impression on the court than if he had been guarded 'and set himself up as a model of restraint. He (the magistrate) had only the evidence before him to consider, and he could not say. that the wife had established the grounds of persistent cruelty m the manner which she hafi alleged. All the evidence, was quite opposed to it. As she had not established that, she had not shown reasonable cause to leave her home, and he must dismiss the comnjaint. The above decision, wisely given, indicates that Magistrate Bartholomew Is no superficial student of human natiirfl and its relatlonshipa,