"YOUR SMILES AND LOVING SOUL"

NZ Truth, Issue 1253, 5 December 1929, Page 7

"YOUR SMILES AND LOVING SOUL"

Wife Finds Love Letter In Husband's Pocket, but Declared He Was Not True To fibfc^^

LAND AGENT'S STORY DISBELIEVED BY S.M.

COUGHED m , most affectionate terms, the letter was as follows: — "My - little' Treasure,—l cannot cease , thinking .of • you. I know your spirit is here with me. I felt your warm amis nestle around me tenderly, dearest one. How I long to feel that it was you, my treasured one. Oh, darling, I love you so tenderly, *our loving soul and your beaming smiles tell me of your tender love. "Yes, my darling, I am not going away. lam better than I was, alr though I still feel a little weak. I know it is the strain of hard toil and this terrible unhappiness. I know, and you know, that we are to love each other and have each other some day. Don't look at this notepaper, darling, it is all I have. How 1 know, and you know, that the tiniest note is ever so much welcome. God bless you, niy treasure. I pray, that you will be happy until we can see each othei^ again. With tender love, from yours' lovingly, ——," This turgid epistle did not come as any searing revelation to Mrs. MeNeilly, for .she was apparently long since disillusioned on the score of her husband's faithfulness. It was, only when, as she alleged, McNeilly persisted m his endeavor to drive her from his home with s her four small children, that she decided to leave him and apply for ,a separation, maintenance and guardianship order. . MeNeillv decided to oooose the McNeil y decides to oppose tne rf'" S^ c not 9wj,n a t^ e +n O Toc6 -'m.rJJ?£ hMt n «rHpr tb ««J as lightly as possible on the scorl of maintenance. • '„„.,,. „ .^^SS^L^S^L^ gation against his wife an connection with the parentage ot cm,e of the chiluS4iS\hrSSraS IcoJmnSS31 co JmnSS3 adversely when awarding Mrs. MeNeilly adequate maintenance for herself and; the four children, together with an order for separation and guardianship. McNeilly's troubles have not been confined to his domestic hearth, for, some months ago, his partnership with one Phillip Heath Hunter, of Palmerston North, was dissolved after an argument m which the partners passed from words to blows. Hunter, it was, who supplied Mrs. McNeilly with a balance-sheet for the last year's working of the partnership, and according to her. statement m court, this document disclosed MeNeilly's share of the profits as £800. She claimed that since the dissolution of partnership the business had not fallen back, yet her husband, despite an income m the vicinity of £800 per annum, had stopped her credit, and would not even give her sufficient money to clothe herself and the four children. McNeilly, m reply, claimed that his wife had been extravagant and that he had been compelled to limit the outgoings owing toshortness of money, He denied all knowledge of the letter found m his pocket, but under A. M. Ongley's cross-examination he became very hesitant as to his reasons for purchasing certain articles of feminine apparel at the same time that he; refused his the. price of a bus Suring the hearing of thecase there were ..several objections from Mr. L. Laurenson, who appeared, for MeNeilly, on the, grounds that references to the other woman m the case were not relevant, but these were not sustamed by the Magistrate. Mr. Ongley, m opening, stated '■■(■.'■'•-.. , '

that although ■ McNeilly had. been described as the man with the , lovely soul and.the beaming smile, he had .not proved true to label m the home circle on the infrequent occasions when he graced it ' with his presence. , His wife, however, was not inspired by jealous motives m bringing this action, but claimed a separation because her husband had failed adequately to provide for her, while he had been squandering his money on another woman McNeilly had 'offered his wife £4 a week on which to run the house and pay the rent. The rent had been 35/a week, leaving the wife about £2 a week on which to feed and clothe herself and her family. " Mrs. McNeilly had refused this offer, but McNeilly had told her that he would make her take.it inside a month, He had then told her that he proposed moving to a four-roomed cottage m Ferguson Street, and had ordered her mother, who had been staying with them, out of the house. Counsel suggested that this was all part-of a deliberate plan to drive the wife from the home. McNeilly was riot defending the action for the sake of his children, but merely to "escape with as little maintenance as possible, Alberta Jane McNeilly, the wife, told the court that even the children made a joke of their father's plea of poverty. saying that dad had said that he had no money. but they could feel it m his pockets. . Her husband had stopped her credit with a" stores, and had s 'ven her n<> mone V s '"ce August

very ' few clothes and only one cheap outfit for the street. Her husband had complained of her extravagance, but this she considered unjustified, as she had never been anything else but saying. -..;,. . Mr. Laurenson: You have not been occupying the same room with your husband for some time?— Not for the last six months. - He said that the baby's crying m the night disturbed, him,' and went to sleep m another room. What*pro,of have you that he was carrying on with"this other woman? — I have seen him v with her several times and I have never had an introduction, In reply to a: further question, the wife stated that-she had.been a music teacher before .fiher ■''•■marriage. She supposed she could stiil-'earn a little money by teaching music if she had not a family of four young children to look after. -■' ''■ Sho had often noticed evidence of another woman having been m the, car after her husband had been out} late at night. ' Once she had' found • his dressinggown and a rug m the front seat and had taken them inside. . < Her husband had given her no money for herself, and had on one occasion even refused to give her bus fares to take the children for a ride, She denied a statement on the part of her husband that she had confessed to him.that she was m doubt about the parentage of one of the children. In reply to. re-examination by Mr. Ongley, Mrs. McNeilly stated that she had found a butt m her

—. ——— '•— : — —-—; ... . . ±-r— ■ • ■-.'■■ •■■• ■"'■■•..' * What MothMtv-Law Had To£atj : • &

r^ ; with which to buy clothes for her- . self- He had kept the household on very short commons, buying beef so often that the children refused to eat it. . He made her submit lists of necessaries, and then made her reduce these further She had on one occasion gi yen a long' list of necessari es for tne children and he had gi yen ncr io/- with which to purchase the lot McNeilly also had given her 2/-for a hair cut and had told her that there would be *6d change , ', -^6 had invited her mother to the house, to look after the children while J^s,.."mf(? n^ d a holiday, tollowing the birth of the youngest child, but had later ordered his mother-in-law to leave, asking his wife at the same time ho\v long it would be before she followed her old woman. • ; ; He was never home until late at night, and had the car away all day on Sundays, when the speedometer u^all^ filo^* 1 a milea Se m the VI. CI" nityof 80 ■ miles. .a She knew that he was going out with another woman, but was not jealous; she only required mamtenance for herself and the children. final breach had come when McNeilly had stated that he proposed to move her into a four-roomed cottage m Ferguson Street. She had. refu.sed to^go and had packed up and lef^the^house. .^^^ S^art o?L? nLb?nd to nTake^the home sfe LSbrSSerout gj yen you"enough to keep you going? — Wel] you can ai ways live on bread and butter-—in a way. Continuing, she said she had . . '■•■■. ' ." "■..

— : — husband's chequebook for: a lady's jumper suit and a manicure set. : Neither of these articles^ had been purchased for her. . > Further evidence was given by Mrs. Emma Muir, mother of Mrs. McNeilly, who stated that McNeilly never took. nis wi^e out and'wasndver home until late at nights. • He did not provide proper food for tne household, but would buy a roast of; beef lasting. for four or five days. Tnis sort of food was: niot ■ suitable for young children. . ;\ She considered that Mrs* 'McNeilly liad been IH-nourished, while the children had not been properly fed. gne remembered one occasion on which her daughter had purchased a packet of baby food 'for .1/6 -and Mc T Neilly had taken back a perihy change. Mr Laurenson,"for McNeilly, contended that: his client had-been com-^ pelled to restrain his .wife's extravagant habits by stopping her credit. p urther, the wife had left-her husband because he proposed movjng into cheaper house, and. under the circumstances, he ■ felt no. obligation to maintain w . - The flefeffce deriiea' that McNeilly wag m r6eeipt of an income of £800 a year; oh'the contrary, his books for the i ast six months showed that he had only made £ioo.- McNeilly had' been forced to economise. .|n the box McNeilly stated that he had auestioned.his wife's ex- ' SSd S<am^S w^l< and he. had .found himself <* u]te unable -to keep pace with ' ■..,-• He had at present debts amounting to £250, m which amount was meluded about £50 outstanding for household expenses. •■■■•''■:.'.•■. '■/ ...■•■..•..■••.■'...■. •.. ■

He had been barely on speaking terms -with, his wife for some time past owing to a confession of misconduct which she had made to him some years after the birth of one of the children, „ Mr. .Laurenson: Did things go all right, with your mother-in-law"' Not too well.. Did she cause trouble?—The average mother-in-law causes a fair amount of trouble.' McNeilly stated that the fourroomed cottage referred to by his wife was m reality a six-roomed dwelling with all conveniences, it was a gross fabrication to state that his income was £81)0 a year. He had asked his niottier-in-law to leave as nicely as he could but she had "fired up" and there had been words exchanged, Mr. Ongley: When did you first pick Up with a Mrs. ?—About three years ago. ' Will you swear that you did not visit her in 'Northcote private hospital? This question appeared to worry McNeilly considerably, and, after some' beating about the bush, he stated that he would .not swear * either way. Further pressed, however, he admitted that he had visited a married woman m the hospital named, but it had-been m company with her husband.-' In reply to another question from Mr. Ongley, McNeilly denied that his car had been doing 70 to 80 miles every Sunday/ ' Mr. Ongley;:. Did you pay £3/10/--for a lady's jumper suit on October 30?— I don't think.so. It was a cosume, pi we. Will you swear that you did not be careful, now.-l am not sure that I did." I have some sort of a : r!!°"^°" 1 boU9ht : one for x V e > ,^\^ .> ■:^ Mr. Ongley c6"ntinued v to: press. his point and McNeilly finally refused to disclose for whom- he had bought either the jumper suit or the manicure set. ;;■■■■'%, ;-v Mr. Ongley:) Is it^tnief that since your wife came back :frbm her holiday you have been doing your best to drive her out?— No. What about this?'letter your wife found m yous.pocket?-£[ know nothing about it. ;*lt'has^ no address and niighf be for -the- rrian-jlfi the niopn: I'he Magistrate remarked that McNeilly had not given his wife a chance, and under the circumstances it was. not fair to expect her- to'continue to live with him. :V'Vr" He had not. maintained: his Wife and family,.and it appeared r from. his. attitude that'he was endeavoring to escape the obligations ■' : • ;! Not only^hadrlie^ failedoto'look-after his wife 'arid ;^h|idren;'; ljut a certain' amount of; neglect had-be>n: shown,--He was of the 6pinibh";.;that^; Me- : Neilly had only offered to; give' his wife a home m order that, ff she refused, he wouia have an excuse for refusing to maintain her. McNeilly had not answered portion of Mr. Ongley's cross-examination because he feared that he-might incriminate himself, but even without the question of maintenance-his ■ miscondu^would Justify his wife m leavalso made an allegation against^thq parentage of one of his own children-a. thing no man should do without good,.reason, The Magistrate ordered McNeilly to pay 30/- weekly, towards the maintenance of. his wife and .15/- for each of the four children. •:.■.. ■'"-.- . •.• ■ : ■.-.'■•

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Palmerston. North Represegi^e) . It is not often that a wife views her husband through rose tinted glasses, but after mil, it. depends on the point of view. To one lady, James Smith McNeilly, land agent of Palmerston Nbrthj was " my little treasure" and a man with a beaming smile and a lovely soul, but to his wife he was a long way from treasure trove. , Mrs. McNeilly found nestling m hubby's pocket one evening a love letter which spoke for itself. Who can wonder if, after that, she regarded herself as having marriedthe Hyde part of a dual personality?