A WOMAN-RULED MAN-KILLER

NZ Truth, Issue 1043, 21 November 1925, Page 8

A WOMAN-RULED MAN-KILLER

Though he said that he had assaulted three men because he considered they had been too friendly with his wife, the_ husband was docile as a lamb m other respects. "Every week I handed her my pay envelope unopened," • he told S.M. Hunt at Auckland, "and she gave me 1/6 back, enough for three drinks. , "I had to give her all my money," he added, "or I •I would not have been able to live with her." A little later the husband told his lawyer that his wife had on one occasion clouted him with an enamel dish. S.M. Hunt: But I thought that you had assaulted three men once? "Yes, sir," came the reply, "but I could not lift my hand to a woman."

"I was for three months walking the streets," she said, "and .coujd not get work. I had the child m my arms and had to beg food for the baby and myself." So impecunious was her lot that she had to seek charitable aid, and the Poor Law Board levied her husband to the extent of 13s 7d a week for her support. She could get, no support from her father, who had ' been unable for f our years to find work. At last she got a job as housekeeper for a man, who died, leaving her enough to enable her to return to New Zealand and her absent husband. DIDN'T LOSE TIME. "I arrived back last week," she told, the' S.M. ' "You haven't loste much time," was the dry response. Mr. Singer put some rather personal questions to the witness on behalf of the husband. "When were you married? — In 1913. Your husband went to the war m 1914 and was taken prisoner m November, was he not? — He was taken prisoner m October, 1914. . He was a prisoner m Germany till 1918 when he escaped? — He did not escape; he was transferred to Holland. During all that time you were receiving an allowance? — I was receiving 12/6 a week. But you were working on munitions, were you not?— Yes. And you were making '£5 a week? — No. Well, was it £4 19s?— No, it was not. . How much was it then? — £2 a 1 week. You broke up the home when your husband was sl prisoner of war? — I never did. The house was broken into one day when I was 'at work. Did you not sell his clothes? — No, I did not. He asked me to send his clothes to Holland, as he wanted to attend a dance or something, and I did, but they were lost on the way. The S.M.: Did you live ' together when he came back? — He never came near me for one whole day. Mr. Singer: Perhaps he was looking for his clothes. (Laughter.)

If your husband says that you did not, what will you say? — I will say that my husband is telling a lie. This is not the first child you have adopted, is it?— Yes, it is. Did you not try to adopt one at Papakura? — Oh, that one! We only had it on trial. (Laughter.) It only stayed one night, and it was so cross we took it back again. ,/ Would you go back to your husband now if he found a home 'for you? — No, I would not. He has been m company with another woman ever since I left. Mr. Singer: Is that why you came back? — No. I brought the child back to it's own country, where it could have a better chance. 1 DIRECT ACTION. Mr. Singer said the <;ase was quite an unusual one. Divorce proceedings had been commenced on the ground of desertion. In his petition the husband swore that since his wife left him m February, 1922, he had not heard from her. The S.M.: When were the proceedings taken? Mr. Singer: In March of this year. The papers were sent Home for service on the woman. Mr. Sullivan denied that the woman had never written to her husband, and said he had proof of the fact. Neil Fisher Elliott said he was a plumber. At present he was getting £4 a week as wages. He had made a home m New Zealand for his wife, but she was always complaining that she wanted to go back Home. He accordingly agreed to let her go. The S.M.: About this child you adopted. Did you get any money for it? — I got no money m respect of the child and did not know my wife was getting any. . Mr. Singer: He says, sir, that nothing outside of the outfit was to be paid for. . '■■■■. The S.M.: I don't believe it. Elliott further said that hi^. wife had left debt which would preVent him from following 'her. He had not written to her because he did not know where she was staying m the Old Country. The S.M.: Is that your case? Mr. Singer: That is all, sir. The S.M.: All right, £2 a week. Mr. Singer: I suggest that is hardly fair, sir. Mr. Hunt: £1 for the woman and £1 for the child. Mr. Singer: But he is not responsible for the child, sir. At this point Mr. Sullivan butted into the ai-gument, and said he wished to put a question to the defendant m regard to his statement that his wife had not written him. Elliott repeated that she had not written. Mr. Sullivan then produced a letter which he showed, to Elliott. The defendant admitted that it was his writing. ' ' Counsel read the letter, whiclf was dated September, 1923? and which set out that he had received her letters oh the subject of her return to New Zealand, and went on to discuss the future of their .married life. The Magistrate made the order as stated.