WOE-CESTER SAUCE

NZ Truth, Issue 1203, 20 December 1928, Page 7

WOE-CESTER SAUCE

Auctioneer Trendle Passed The Condiment So Vigorously That It Dislocated His Wife's Jaw

HIS DIVORCE BID KNOCKED DOWN

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special "Wellington Representative)

When the matrimonial shackles become irksome and the two that were as one agree to separate, the law provides that after a lapse of three years a complete severance of the tie can he obtained. Alfred Thomas Trendle knew that part of the law when he brought a petition m divorce before Judge MacGregor m the Wellington Supreme Court. But although there was no doubt that he had been separated from his wife, Elizabeth Trendle, for over the required period, his plea of mutual separation didn't hold water with his honor and the petition was dismissed.

r TRENDL__3 stepped into 'the box at 1 the behest of his counsel, Lawyer Jack Scott, to tell his story. Mrs. Trendle was a widow living m Christchurch when- he married her m April, 1908, he said. There were children of her previous marriage. The passing of the years saw the couple depart from the city of the plains and cross to Sydney, where they conducted a small business. Sixteen months later they were back again m Christchurch. Ultimately they drifted to "Wellington, where Trendle entered Into an auctioneering business. With the slump came a falling:- off In his business and he went bankrupt, but the business still continued under Mrs. Trendle's guidance, and she had the banking account placed m her name." .-; In 1924, the business was. abandoned altogether, At that time they were living m Abel Smith Street, where Mrs. Trendle was conducting a board-ing-house. His relations with his wife were not happy and she was always complaining. Sometimes she complained about his drinking. Lawyer Scott: Did you consider you were drinking to excess? Trendle: No. Prior to 1924 proceedings ware taken through the court by Mrs; Trendle on three, separate occasions for separation, but' no order was ever made. In June of 1924 V there was a violent quarrel and he left the house. Lawyer Scott: Why did you go?— I found myself blackguarded to such an extent and was ordered out several times that finally I decided to go. Mrs. Trendle was quite agreeable to my S° in S- . \ 7,., *■ «. "The expression she used. said Trendle, "and I'll never forget it, was, T hope I never see your face again.'" Separation proceedings were later instituted by Mrs.- Trendle and although separation was refused, . the magistrate granted her maintenance. Under cross-examination by Lawyer T. P. Cleary, who defended, the petition on behalf of the wife, Trendle admitted he was arrested on November 11, 1925, because of default on the maintenance order and served a month's imprisonment. Again, m January of this year, he was arrested for the same thing. His movements and his work had been' very indefinite. . ! The previous separation proceedings never got so far as the court, a recon- I ciliation taking place on each occasion. In answer to a question, Trendle said his wife might have taken these steps on the ground, of failure to maintain and persistent cruelty. Lawyer Cleary: Did you ever, strike your wife? — Not intentionally. At Horse Trough Well, have you ever struck her unintentipnally? — Not that I know of. Have you ever thrown anything at her?— No. Let me remind you. Do you remember throwing a ' sauce bottle at her while- In Sydney? — No. You don't remember her being , attended by a doctor for an injury to her jaw? — I do not remember. Others will swear that you threw a sauce bottle and dislocated Mrs. Trendle's jaw? — I deny that. Do you remember when m Christchurch with your brother, dragging Mrs. Trendle to a horse trough? — I do not. What was the cause of the six weeks' separation m C'hristchurch?— My wife's violent l temper. Was it not caused because' your wife was violently thrashed by your brother m your presence? — No such thing happened. Do you remember striking your wife with your fist one Christmas,? — That did not happen. Your wife and daughter will say that prior to living m Wellington you frequently struck your wife about the face? — That i s decidedly not true. .So far as household expenses were I concerned, Trendle told his wife's counsel that she received all' she wanted. Money was unlimited. Counsel: Your wife will say that for family household expenses, she has not had £20 from you all her married life, but has kept the house from the proceeds of boarders? — That is ridiculous. The fact remains she did keep board- : ers? — Yes, much against my will. Counsel also had something to say regarding Trendle's alleged drinking habits and wanted to know why Mrs. Trendle asked her husband to take out a prohibition order. "You used to keep liquor?" he asked. "Oh, yes," was the reply. "I always had ale, stout,, whisky and sometimes brandy and lemonade m the house. Nearly every week I got an order , m. It all depended on how many guests I was entertaining." Did you" ever suffer from illness •through drinking?—- No.

Didn't you ■ have .the delirium j tremens? — No. ' _ . j Your wife says she has nursed you | on five or six occasions through these bouts? — That is not so. - Did your business suffer from >your drinking- habits? — None whatever. Finally Trendle said he had, not cleared out' because his wife upbraided him for his drinking habits! It was under a mutual agreement that he left. Charles Dickenson, an auctioneering friend of Trendle, said he had known petitioner for a number of years. So far as he knew he was always temperate m his drinking habits, nor had he ever heard of him having ah attack of D.T.'s.. The Wife's Story Another friend, Thomas Mason, said that during the fifteen years of his acquaintance.' he had never known Trendle to drink to 'excess. They met frequently m the course of business. Elizabeth Trendle told the court an entirely different story from that presented by her husband. The essence of her theme. was cruelty and drunkenness. ■ ■■ . ■■' In Christchurch, Trendle came home early one morning after being- out all night, she told his honor. He wanted to go to bed, but because she would not let him, he struck her and blackened both her eyes. In Sydney he had thrown a sauce bottle at her. After their return, to Christchurch her husband and his brother were always drunk. BeflllllllllllllllttllMMtlllliniitliltliitilllliltlllllllllllllllllllllllllllHllllllllllHllHHlltlHlllMlUltllllllllllllllllll tIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIItIJIUIIIIIIIItIIIIIUtHIUUtItUUUItIIUIMIIIIIIIIIIItIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIMnMrfItIIIIIirIiiIiiiiiiiiiii

cause she refused to have her brother-in-law m the house the two men .dragged her out to a tub m the backyard used for the horse. The neighbors disturbed them. Trendle's brother had also thrashed her and thrown her out of the house on one occasion when she had gone to his place for her husband. Trendle stood by and watched the proceedings. They moved to Wellington about 1916 and it became Trendle's habit to strike her when sober. He used to get drunk m the shop and also bring liquor home. He had always been a hard drinker and oh occasions she had to get help for the business. It was her habit, after she attended to the boarding-house to go down to the business and manage it. Every two months or so, Trendle got an attack of the delirium tremens, and nearly every night was brought home drunk m a taxi. He seldom walked. "Did his drinking habits have , anything to do with the business failure?'' asked Lawyer Cleary. "It had everything to do with it," was the reply. I ■ The maintenance came from the boarding-houses which she had carried on thi*oughout her married life. On the day he left she asked him to go and get work and give up his drinking and gambling habits and bad companions. He refused to do so and left. To Lawyer Scott, Mrs. Trendle said she never made any complaint to the police about Trendle's brother thrashing her. ..'."".....- During the course of their business m Wellington she had called the police m on several occasions because of the way he was treating her. They knew he was drinking- to excess and people used to see him drunk. at the business. Counsel wanted to know why, seeing that the police knew Trendle'was such a heavy drinker, they renewed • his auctioneering and land agent's licenses from year to. year. Mrs. Trendle said the licenses. should hot have been renewed. Questioned concerning Mason's evidence, Mrs. Trendle said her husband knew Mason was a drunkard. Counsel: Mr. Dickenson has no illfeeling against you?— He is the same as Trendle; Over the whole period of your married life, you are asking the court to believe you have received, only £1 a year from your husband? — Yes. ' '

uiniiuiiHiuiiiiiiiiiii'-iiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiHiii The money from her flrst husband's home started Trendle off m business, she told counsel. It was this money that bought the shop m Sydney, and the proceeds from that bought the Wellington business. Mrs. Trendle's daughter, Miss Anderson, gave evidence of cruelty practised by Trendle on her mother. Lawyer Cleary: Have you ever seen him drunk? — Well, I have hardly ever seen him sober. He used to bring it home m his pock ets. He Avas al ways the same, bu became worse jus before 1 c avi n { home. Lawyer Scott*. So there is not one good point about Trendle at all? — Not that I know of. That has been your attitude all, along? — Well, it should be, seeing the way lie has treated my mother. • ■ , 'In supporting his mother's evidence, Martinius Anderson related the sauce bottle incident m Sydney. Trendle viciously threw• the ' bottle at his mother, dislocating her jaw. Mrs. Ri E. Morris told the court what she knew of the relations existing between Trendle and his wife. She had

"Not A Good Point"

iiiiuiiuuiuuiuuiiHiimiiiiiiuiiiiiuiiitiiiiiuiuiiiiiiiiiiiimiimiimiiimmiiii been a boarder at Mrs. Trendle's house and was m the bathroom adjoining the room where respondent had told her husband he must give up his drinking and bad companions. Later, when downstairs, Mrs. Trendle came into the room, crying, and said her husband was going away. Witness told her not to worry as he would come back again as he had done before. His honor said he was satisfied there had been no mutual separation. .■-Trendle had been asked to mend his ways and, instead, had packed ,h i s things and cleared out. Even if there was, m fact, a separation, the Act laid it down- that if it was caused by the wrongful conduct of a petitioner, the court should not grant a dissolution of the marriage. "There, is no doubt that this man was a heavy drinker and made his wife's life unbearable," went on his honor. "He the*, .clears out and now comes here four years later seeking a divorce. The petition will be dismissed." Witnesses' expenses and disbursements and £25 costs were debited against Trendle.