WHY DID WILLIAM LEAVE HOME ?

NZ Truth, Issue 1080, 12 August 1926, Page 9

WHY DID WILLIAM LEAVE HOME ?

Eight Little Sparks Failed To Keep Blacksmith Welded To His Matrimonial Forge HOWLANDS HAMMER IT OUT ON DIVORCE ANVIL

1' : ! (From "Truth's" / Special Wellington Representative.) - } o THE logic of William Richard Howland, boilermaker, blacksmith, engineer and father of eight 1 (eight being an oqtave but not nebessarily harmonious), was "if. at first you don't agree try,/try again." "

AJSfD, believing that Hades was not the oilly destination to be reached via pavement stories of good intentions, he set out with his Jane for the matrimonial Utopia over thirty years ago.

ALAS! Fate's decree has proved aC A decree nisi m the village smithy's favor. Time was, however* when every clang of the anvil was a musical vibration iri his heart.for the two lives that had been welded on the connubial anvil by a registrar m far-off England.

HEN later, according to the story William Richard told Judge Ostler m the Divorce Court last week, he began t,o realize tn{Vt all the s ParHs i" life did not necessarily come from * v the black-

smith's forge. Now he is -firmly- convinced that the welding turned out by the registrar on August 4, 1894, was not altogether an oxo-acetone job", so far as durability goes. His ups and downs were mostly like those of "The Village Blacksmith." "Toiling; rejoicing, sorrowing, Onward through life he go,es. . ." But nqw; after eight little Howland milestones have appeared on the road paved with excellent intentions, he has discovered that life isn't altogether a bitumen track made for smooth, going. Was Wife To Blame?

The problem that presented itself so cogently to the Divorce Court last week was . whether William Richard Howland had voluntarily wandered away from the domestic fold, or whether his wifey, Jane Howland, had been pleased to see him go — and even assisted him. ' With two such conflicting issues, ■ his Honor had a job to hammer it out, but eventually he found that no wrongful act of the petitioning husband was responsible for the separation. Petitioner, a simple", solid -thinking, earnqst type of man, who was represented by Lawyer A. W. Blair, deposed to having moved about a good deal with his wife during" the earlier part of their, married life, eventually emigrating to Queensland and finally drifting across to . New Zealand 23 years ago, when they accepted Petohe as their haven of repose. Before they emigrated, however, said Howland,- "my wife was very vicious arid we were , often being ' turned out of the places we rented. "She promised' to mend her ways, so we decided on a new country, sold up our effect's. and away we went." Away Every Night ' After dealing laboriously -with every phase of- their married life iti the land that is supposed to be virtually flowing with milk and honey, petitioner mentioned, that m 1909 his \vife took proceedings against him for separation and maintenance, alleging, cruelty, but the late Dr. McArtbur, S.M., had held that there had been no 'cruelty and gave the custody of the children to thfe daddy. However, there was a brief separation before they came together and things were running as • smoothly as any pair of smithy's bellows when, . Howland said, hi? better-half came into contact with a woman named Prichard to whom, he had a rooted objection. "After meeting her;" said petitioner, "sho was continually away at night "I didn't think Mrs. Prichard was a proper person to know Mrs. Howland." Hubby Asks Questions .Doalirig with later events m their chequered career, he' said he had reason to suspect his -\vif6's condition. "I asked hep if such was such," said Howland, "but she replied: 'Findvout!'" Lawyer P. J. O'Regani who appeared Cor the respondent, raised the fairness of the question m relation to. fact.. Lawyer Blair: The point involves the question of the legitimacy of a child. 1 dbri't warft to raise the question, but I understand it will come out : ;. Lawyer O'Regan: It must do, now that you have raised it. Lawyer Blair: I will leave it if you like. Lawyer O'Regan: You will have to go on with it now, but I will remind you that Howland was obliged to publish a fulsome apology m the paper' fqr his allegations against .his wife. Lawyer Blair: Yes, we will come to that m good time. Continuing, witness said that he published the apology, riot because he had' learned that his allegations were unfounded, but because of the children and his desire for peace and d.uietness. •'.'"*". Tragic Christmas Eye He i-emembered subsequently saying to his wife: "Look, it's no good us going on like this ; occupying separate beds and living like this." Her reply was: "The best thing you can do is to get out then."' . It was on Christmas Eve, 19.15, that he sought the quiet of, a boardinghouse. He had been painstakingly regular m the matter of maintenance ever since. . When he was at Trentham his. wife . contracted debts which he had to pay and was .obliged to put an ''I-won't-be-responsible" advertisement m. the papers. . •- When he was earning a paltry £3 6s , a week, he was giving her, half . and < starred paying her £ 2 weekly six years ago. "I love my children," he said, "and have done all m my power to gladden their -hearts whenever I could, but rtiy wife was doing all • she possibly could ( to. keep the children away." Lawyer $la-.ir: "Now your wife intends to suggest that you are very much addicted to drink. I ,' . v Petitioner (very earnestly): "I say this — fearlessly— that I have , never been under the influence of 'liquor more than three times m my life. "If i she speaks the truth she wilt say she has never seen me drunk. "At the same time, I say that I am not a teetotaller. Sometimes after I knock off . about six, when I am very

hot, I have a glass, but very seldom." To Lawyer O'Regan, petitioner said that although he had promised >to go and see a doctor at his wife's request, following his suggestion to her, he had not done so. He published the apology withoul seeing the dojetor. ■ He adfnitted that it was not the' first time m their married life that he had questioned the; paternity of ' one of his children. Lawyer j, O'Regan: Mrs. Prichard was very Kind, to yo.ur wife when she was m the convalescent home? — She was very, kind when she made iriy place a regular bear-garden. Have- you ever struck your wife? — No, sir; I have shaken her when she rushed at me with anything she could lay her hands on. Do you have a glass of beer sometimes?— l might, have a glass if I am -hot after work, but that is • all. Most of the time I haven't got the purchasing power. (Laughter). How old are you? — Fifty-four. You have the idea, haven't you, that by getting a divorce you will get out of paying -for your wife?— Alter all I have gone through I only want a fair thing: ' : Is it true that you intend to go to Sydney when you get your

IQHN McN.AIR, a rather young man, •y came up at the Auckland Magistrate's Court last- week before Magistrate Poynton on a charge of assault. His right eye showed signs of having connected with ' something suddenly and violently, while his upper, lip looked as if it had met trouble more than half way. <=a«go E was charged with assaultyHfeffl ing Percy Rbblhsdn, and ( JiKM: the' assaulted brie , went into i fG£« the witness-box and told a I «m\ story- which was amusing v^Wrj^^ to any but those taking part M?3m^ m the little drama. :-'■■■':'. The meeting of the two men was unexpected oh the part ot McNair, it seems. Robinson related how lie was supposed to be at Helensville, but he "doubled back" and found— as he ex-

pectefl— the darkhaired man making a cuckoo of him. ; McNair, he said, hit him on Vthe shoulder when the fun begart, and to add insult to injury,* his own .

; wife' held him r^W***P?°^^^f -^PI' to keep him from hitting the acr cused while the latter tried .to punch him. The wronged husband's" shoulder wis hurt, but he admitted to Lawyer Matthews (for' accused) that otherwise he had nothing to show for the assault. - Counsel suggested that he was angry. A "l 'was past that," replied Robinson. He added: "It is a fact that he gave me his word of honor tliat he wouldn't go near my wife again: "As to being angry, the angry stage was past; I was looking for evidence.'Covered With' Blood Lawyer Matthews asked him if his shoulder was as strained as his story of the unpleasantness. "Not as yours," •was the quick retort. <*You hit the accused?" asked counsel. "By the time he hit me I hit him back," replied Robinson. 1 "Oh, you hit him back?" was the next query. "Well, wouldn't you?" demanded Robinson. It was further disclosed that the villain of the piece had l Mrs...Robins'.'n m hospital m his name. „ ■ The aggrieved husband's evidence concluded, the Court orderly,' was asked to call pbris Robinson. ■ Ail eyes were turned towards the passage dooj; when her name was called loudly m Court and m the passage, but the curious were not to be gratified. iDoris was not having, any. "No appearance, your Worship," announced, the orderly. , Constable Smith, who was called to

divorce?— -No; all my certificated are New Zealand certificates. Those and my. old age are all I have left. Speaking with . emotion, petitioner added: "And is it a fair thing, 1 ask you, that I should go on like this for the term of my natural life-time withbut a little peace and quietness m my declining years, "I tell you I don't want to escape my obligations to my children; I will help them to the utmost." Lawyer O'Regan: I put it to you that your wife never consented to your leaving home and that you left the house m a fit of indignation and came back three weeks • later and threw down 30/-?— I put it to you that it is absolutely wrong; absolutely! A Friend In Need ' Jane Howland, oni the diminutive side, somewhat drawn-looking, but sure of her facts, also bore testimony to the fact that she had been refused an order for. separation against her husband m 1909. The woman, Mrs. Prichard, had proved a friend m need and a "; friend indeed when respondent was ill "due to having , so many, children and having them so close to- | gether." Respondent said she was m a shocking condition and had to go into hospital.' That was why the _ separation was necessary. ■ , It was not a permanent separation and it was because of her : enforced

the scene,, told how Robinson was struggling with McNair and the wife was trying,. to separate them. Robinson was covered with bfood, but it was ; the gore of the intruder. It was not the first time that the P.C. had been called to the scene. -McNair had admitted to the constable that, he had been, keeping .company with Mrs. Robinson for some, eighteen months. , V ■ Lawyer Matthews was constrained to admit that his client had been somewhat too friendly with thje woman; m the case,!. but .on .the other, hand the husband, had' assaulted McNair so "often' that ; he had to-be written to. Counsel argued" that there was no 'assault, :and put the offender 'm the witness-box. • ■ ; McNair did no.t cut much of a

'figure as a Lothario. ■•' It was shown that a letter had ; - been sent from the legal - people on July 8 intimating to Robinson that if he assaulted his^ wife's friend .any more

"■■"^•■■■■■■■■■Baß! 1 !" action "would b c taken against him without delay. In reply to counsel, McNair said: "He rushed, at me and hit me." You got,, the worst of it?-^-Yes; when the police came they charged me with assault. "When Senior Sergeant- Edwards asked McNair where he lived, he mumbled something inaudible. What were you doing m Eden Crescent? — I was on my way to town. "Why did you need to go by Eden Terrace?" McNair had no answer. Earned His Hiding , The Bench observed when things had gone so far: "The other man came back expecting to find him— and did." ' Sergeant Edwards: You are a married man?— Yes. s , Been going with ' this woman some time?— Yes. You knew ' She was married? — Yes. "You were trespassing on the preserves of< others," commented Magistrate P,oyntdri, "and you got what you deserved. You had been forbidden to go there." ' Turning to the senior sergeant, the S.M. added: "The- husband doubled back from Helensv.ille and caught him; he got a good hiding. „. . "If a man goes to another's house he can expect it." 1 iyicNair did not seem to display, much interest m the proceedings, and when he was convicted and soakedfor the costs he lost no time m getting out of Court. ; It is understo6d that other proceedings are pending.

absence m hospital that the custody of the children was given to petitioner. ."Her husband never visited her while m hospital, nor sent the children to see her. -■"■•• Dealing with the time when she was m a certain condition at Trentham, she said that her husband asked her if the child was his and then said he was "not coming up to my confinement." She told .him to go and see the doctor, who would explain the reason for his misconception, and he said' he would. : "One day," added respondent, "he saw me coming away from the doctor's and said: 'Hello, after ,your fancy men again?'" Three months after he left her, but bobbed up three weeks later, introducing himself by giving one of the boys a good thrashing and then intimating that he was "getting out." He produced 30/-, but respondent said it was not sufficient for, the. children, so he took it back again until respondent said: "Give it to me; it is better than nothing," and he threw it down and decamped. ." Reverting to the period when her husband had besmirched her. character and then apologized, resppndent saidshe always had been an honorable woman and she had refused to allow him to come back to her if he entertained $ these false" ideas. William Went Away "It was no good us bringing children into/ the world and him saying they didn't ; belong to him," added Mrs. Howland. ' , His Honor: Nevertheless, you refused to have him back even after he had apologized? — It- was because of that, sir. It was no good to. the children if he did not believe them to be his. ■ As for cruelty, the wife said her husband had hit her one day with a flat-iron and had also tried to choke her before he left. He had enjoyed access to the children whenever he chose. Lawyer Blair: Your complaint against your husband is really his reflection on your chastity? — Would you mind putting it a bit' plainer, sir? He said, the child was not his? —I have never committed misconduct m my life. Anyway, he did not believe he was the father of the last child and went away? — Yes. ■ ■■ < ■ ■• On Hands And Knees Yoii didn't ask him to stay? — Oh no! :' He just sort of went? — Yes. Now, I put it'«to you Mrs. How- ! land, that it wasn't flat-irons or drunkenness that you were fright-, ened of, but the risk of children? —No. ' Was the flat-iron incident before 1909?— Yes. ' Well, didn't you remember it when you asked Dr. McArthur for the order? —Yes, I remembered it all right. It cut my head open. H6w many times do you say your husband came home drunk? — Oh, three or four times a, week. ' • Drunk? — Yes, l v have seen him crawl into the bedfoom on his hands and knees, he was that drunk./ / What! And this happened two or three times a week?— Yes. Come, what do you, call drunk?— Well, when a man crawls into a room and can't even take his clothes or boots off. ' ' "Urn! That's not a bad test," remarked counsel. . Later "m the proceedings, Lawyer O'Regan intimated that m substitution pf the allegations of .cruelty and drunkenness, the wife- would rely on .the point that the separation was due to a wrongful act on the part \of the husband. ' N '■A Strange Ignorance" An adjournment was made to thrash out this aspect of ,the matter. "Whatever, is said," remarked hia Honor when hearing lengthy arguments from counsel, "the husband is not going to get custody of these children unless they prefer it." - ' Lawyer O'Regan: There is a possibility, your Honor, that ha thinks he will be able to escape maintaining 'his wife, if he is divorced. . " Hie Honor: Well, he is showing a strange ignorance of. the, law if he thinks that. O'Regan: He may marry again, though, and that — — Petitioner (interrupting): There is no reason to worry, if I may say so. \ Counsel: Oh, I am not worrying! His Honor's Decree His Honor went on to say that probably there wei-e faults on both sides, but the onus was. on the wife to prove that their separation was caused by the wrongful-act of the petitioner, and. this had not been established. It was curious to observe m passing that although it was alleged that the husband had doubted the fidelity of his wife beforeeven prior to coming to NewZear , land — she had not made it the subject of a separation before. He granted the decree nisi, but intimated that he was riot prepared at the present time to give the custody, of the children to . the father, who would; nevertheless, be given reasonable access to them.