WANTED CREAM AND POULTRY

NZ Truth, Issue 1301, 20 November 1930, Page 5

WANTED CREAM AND POULTRY

SCHNEIDEMAN and his wife were divorced on August 4 of this year, but for two years before that date ttiere had been trouble between them, mainly- oyer money matters. . ( , :On November 7, 1928, they entered, into an arrangement by which -he : was to pay her an allowance; but this was only the; beginning, , not the., end of their differences. By this arrangejnent they were to continue outwardly their former mode, of living, and for over a. year afterwards they lived m the same house. -■'..■.. .. Mrs. Schneideman alleged that between November 7, 1928, and -August 28, 1929, 'hei> husband had not paid her a personal .allowance of £4 a week,' amounting to.' £168, which was allegedly agreed upon; that she had .expended £52 of her own money 6n certain household .accounts and wages;

CORRESPONDENCE,

DEDUCTIONS

REPUDIATION

Edna Schneideman Talks of Divorced Husband

Henry's Alleged Gastronomic Fancies

COUNTER-CHARGE OF EXTRAVAGANCE

* (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Wellington Representative.) . ": Divorced v m August of this year, Henry Schneideman, company manager, was v again taken before the court by the woman he had married, Edna Muriel Schneideman, and this time m respect of a claim for £251/10/-, being, for the most part, moneys alleged-; ly -j'diie to the ex-wife iri regard to maintenance; ;-■ V * Edna's complaint,/ during the course of the court action, was that before she divorced Henry he gave her £9 a week on which to run the house and m return he demanded, four arid; five-course meals, including cream arid poultry^ Schneideman retaliated with a denial Of liability m regard to her claims and also m respect of her allegations.

that Schneideman had riot paid her £24. at £'4 , a week, which she had expended on .clothing for' herself and children between: February 29, 1930, and April 17, 1930; and\that,.she. had paid £7/10/- as wages to a servant,, and this, should hay been paid .by Schneideman. m her evidence .the ex- wife declared that Schneideman had promised to. pay the amounts .of £52^. and also items, from which the clairri/for \£IGS : arose, m the course of a conference they, had with their solicitors. ' The other amounts had not been incurred j at that time. '''-„'. V I .'•'The actual amount of £168 had noti been specifically ..mentioned, though it was understood that she was to , be allowed compensation for ' the items covered by' it. „. . '■ ;, j Numerous' letters, which dealt with their domestic differences, and which were written by the, solicitor's for both parties, were read m court by Mr. F. V F. VC. Spratt/ counsel for Mrs. Schneideman. ... One of. 'these letters was. from a firm of solicitors acting for, Schneideman, who wrote to Mrs. Schneideman | suggesting- that a deed . of .separation be arranged:,, between; herself and her htisba,nd; «&'■'■:.. „'■' V 1 ■■ .;. 'I, y A few dax6;l«t;er£^ man received 'another letter m•- -• forming Tier that Schneidemah was ~ prepared to make tip the differ-. . ences and so avoid a. separation, conditionally on an undertaking by his wife not to incur debts m his or. her name. V-V-

| In this letter it was suggested that j Schneideman 'pay; Mrs. Schneideman £9 a week when two Vof tho. four children were at school, and £11 a week Avhen they were at home. Questioned as to this arrangement Mrs; Schneideman said that she wjould not accept it. "He (Schneideman) .wants four or five-course/ meals," ..she' said. : "He must have cream and poultry, and he said 'that if he did; not get them he- Avould have to go to an hotel." ■ ■ . ■• i■ ;■ My. Spratt: Was there any sugges<tion prior to that that you had run up unnecessary bills ?— No. I had not^uri up bills. I had £8 a week, and I couldn't manage on' it. He raised it to £9 a week. \ Mrs, Schneideman stated that while she was getting money from Schneideman he had- not paid. for. anything for her. ' v , , „,.-; '•".■■■ "If I went to a theatre with him \ would have to pay, for myself. I got sick of it and stayed at home. . If we went out driving and had afternoon tea I would have to pay.' for my- own. ; In the end 1 sat out. . ■'■ m the' car and/ let him go m." ; Eventually, she alleged,., it was agreed that Schneideman' should allow her £11 a week,: but after, he had made one payment, he broke : this agreement and did, not, pay her. •He had also promised to pay- her, the £52 and also the amount of £168, but

she had not received f a penny of either /amounts. He offered to pay her the £168;- in. monthly instalments of £20,' and though she first refused to accept, these ter iris she later agreed. "He told me," said Mrs.. Schneideman, "that the money was. better m his business than m my bank. I kne.w that there was trouble between the brothers at the time. He put me off that" month, and the next month he again put it aside. "That, was just before last Christmas; He went for a holi-; day and before he went he gave • I me £30 io go for a trip. to AuckV land. After be returned m Febr ruary I heard of something which subsequently led to my divorcinghim." ■■■■...■, 'Until the decree nisi was granted, she continued, she did not /'press her cla-im for the £20 a month, though at rio. time-had she dropped it. .Cross-examined, by Mr. O'Leary* Mrs.. ' Schneidemah denied that | Schneideman had promised to. pay off the £52'in instalments, and that that amount was fully paid. ' V Mr. O'Leary: He says that ,'he paid it to you m sums of £.5, but, had paid the balance of £20 before- he went away for his holiday at Christmas time?— -He gave me, £20 to go t£ Auckland with, "but as I had to take the children and the maid, I told, him it was not enough and he gave me another cheque for. £10. , ;••• „; He gave ybu £22 as maintenance

of her trip-. Although he would ; not be sure of the point, he thought that his secretary! had Vpaid Mrs. Schneideman's fare to Auckland. .He denied that he had agreed to pay the. amount' of ; £168, and N said that he Svas not; liable for that sum nor for. the smaller one, of £24. Mr. O'Leary: Had you made any attempt to pay the £52? — Yes. I said that she didn't want the. money as. she would only spend- itVf, It would be better m my business .than m her pocket; and I .could give" It to her as .she wanted , i t. That was when, my brother- and I started negotiations for. an amalgamation. •■.. There, was no trouble between lis. In reply ..to further questions by Mr. O'Leary, Schneideman said that after he v was divorced an order for- alimony w.as fixed at £10 a, week,' and ,was to-

be paid .from a \ date several weeks '"prior to that of- the divorce. -,*■." During that period he had paid accounts f ow his wife,' totalling' . about £30, and. he deducted this from: the first payment of .alimony he had made to her. - . „.- ■ She did .not object, then,, nor did shemention that the. sums she .was proneeding- against him for were' owing. He considered that if she' thought then that, the' money was owing, she would have objected to'. the deduction being; made. , .Referring, to the time „' he arid his wife were m Eurdpe he i*ald that she -had-" safd ''she.Vhad enough clothes to last her for two years. V "She had 13 trunks, and the amount of .trouble. we. had at the different countries' with the custom officers!"' exclaimed Schneideman. "They said that we had a ware-; "' house or a shop, not personal luggage." Under cross-examination m regard to the money he had been- allowing his wife, Schneideman denied that on the occasion he was going away forj a holiday that he "split" her weeklj; allowance, He said, that he had been away on different Occasions and always paiA^er m full. - - - ' He claimed' that he had paid her the v £ll r a week- constantly, but had stopped doing so because, she was, spending the. money and not paying, the household accounts. Oh other oc T casions when he handed her the money she had thrown it back at him.. He denied that when liis wife and he>; went to the pictures together that she had paid her own way.. "She frequently) Avanted to take her nephew with her," he said, "but when I refused to pay for him she refused to go." Mr. Spratt: When . you went out driving, did you expect her to pay 'for her own tea?— Schneidemah: Would any, man do that,?: Do you think that I would, leave a woman /sitting m a car while I went m for afternoon tea? Do you think tti^t I woujd have taken her to the Continent it I were a man like that?. •'■' ,' The Magistrate, Mr. E. Page, said that Mrs. Schneideman's claim for the £168 was based on uncorroborated evidence m regard to a verbal promise to pay. ! " He considered that if she had 'intended earlier >io obtain that' : amount from her v husband she- ' would not have agreed to fjis making the deduction m the first amount of alimony he had Vpaid her. i. He also considered that if she were Owed the, £24, and had npt been paid the £52 she also would not have accepted the reduced, amount of; alimony. In regard to ,the .amount of £7/10/- - wages, he said that* Schneideman was riot legally liable for that, but as he, had agreed to pay it, Ke thought' thatthe should pay. ." ';.';. -. - Judgment .was given ; against Mrs. Schneideman on all her, claims, except that for a domestic's wages, £ 7/10/-. No v costs were asked for. ■ • ,-.■:! ■. •" ■ : ' ' --■- ■ ■- .'

■'ajt the same time? — He gave me £5 10/-. He said, that he was going away in.the.. the. middle of the week", and I would not need £11. ... Mrs. Schneideman admitted that before securing her divorce she and her •husband had a conference with their solicitors, but that no mention of th'e £168. was .then made, though the £52 was mentioned. The reason the matter regarding the larger sum was not discussed, she said, was that her solicitor, who was then acting for her, suggested that it would be better' to hold that point over until after the _'• divorce.' V V, Mr.' O'Leary: Didn't ,y"ou suggest that all matters then outstanding between you arid Schneideman were settled? — No. , ' Your solicitor agreed to things when i'oii didn't?— Yes'. V. \ * You repudiate that agreement?— Yes. : ", , After further cross-examination regarding, maintenance matters, Mr. O'Leary questioned Mrs. Schneideman about her, trip abroad. „.'■ , , "You were away for 20 months," he said, "and when you returned ypu had a big wardrobe — an expensive wardrobe? ...-.■., '" • Mrs.. Schneideman: . Certainly riot. Mr. O'Leary: I understand that it ran into well over four figures?— Certainly riot. He went away with -the idea of ; spending £500 on me. He thought that, he- could buy *boxes of things for nothing .m Paris. Mrs. Schneideman complained that when she was away she had to send for £90 of her own money.' "If I went into a shop to get a packet of pins he Avould follow me m arid pay for them," she' said. , • Jlenry Schneideman, who gave his occupation as a company manager, .said m evidence th,at he would admit having agreed to, pay £52, but he that this amount had paid, the last payment- being of £20 and ; made just, prior to 1 , his wife's going to Auckland. . .He said that he. had then given „ her two cheques, one for £20 as a final payment off the £52, and another for *10 for the expenses