"TOO LATE NOW," SAYS WIFE

NZ Truth, Issue 1305, 18 December 1930, Page 3

"TOO LATE NOW," SAYS WIFE

"She Was Sweet When I Came Back "

She Thought They Were Separated For Ever, But Husband Returned

HE BLAMED HIS MOTHER -IN - LAW

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

Eileen Muriel Gladys Kingsbury's story to Mr. Justice Adams, when she asked him to divorce her from Stanley Lester Kinsbury on the grounds of mutual separation, was that her husband had repeatedly told her that he was sick of things and was going to "clear out" from the farm. She had told him she was quite agreeable and he departed. Stanley denied the correctness of this version and insisted that he had never agreed to separate and that his mother-in-law was "at the bottom of it all." "She has complete influence over my wife," he announced.

IT all happened on a farm m Hanmer Springs, which Kingsbury, m partnership with the father of his wife-to-be, helped to run. It was not, until after the older man's death, and Kingsbury's marriage to Eileen Boyd, that the trouble occurred, however. While Boyd lived, everything went along smoothly, that is, according to Kingsbury's story to the judge, and the first real break m the union came m May, 1927, just five years after the wedding. The wife, who was assisted by Mr. Van Asch, asked the court to believe that her farmer husband had declared more than once that he was sick of everything, including herself, but Stanley denied this, and had quite a a different story to tell. When he left his wife on the farm, he had no idea that it was to be for ever, as she alleged, and he briefed Mr. Charlie Thomas to oppose her petition on that ground. And, while not saying that he disbelieved Mrs. Kingsbury's story, Mr. Justice Adams pointed out at the conclusion of the case that she had failed to prove that an agreement to separate had been entered into. Mrs. Kingsbury told her counsel „—■—■•. that after her mar- — — — riage she lived with her husband on ■the farm at Hanmer Springs until May, 192.7. "We were always rowing, and there was no peace m the house," she declared. "That went on for the last two years prior to May, 1927." Mr. Van Asch: Did you agree to separate m May? — Yes. My husband said he was sick of me and he wanted to get away, and I said 1 was quite agreeable for him to go. When was this said? — Jmined'otoly prior to the separation. Had he ever made statements .«tmilar to that before ? — Yes, dozens of times. "He went' away, and I did not see him again ..until, July, .when ..he. came back," added Mrs. Kingsbury. "I told him it was no use to come back, because we had agreed to part." Mr. Van' Asch: How long did this Conversation laist?— About five minutes. What else was said?— He told me some of the things he had been doing while he was away. The other conversation was really general, and I told him it was no use coming back. What did he say to that? — He said he would never come back again. Stanley wrote to her after he took his leave the second time, the wife said m reply to her counsel, but he had made no complaint about her attitude m refusing to be reconciled. She had not seen him since he left her m July, 1927, and the last letter she had from him was dated August 12. There was no reference m the letter to the separation. Mr. Thomas (cross-examining): When your husband left you, did he leave a manager to look after the farm? — Yes. Was that done with his consent? — Yes. When did you leave the farm, Mrs. Kingsbury? — Last May. "I was living on the farm for three years with his consent," the wife hurried on, "and I got nothing for iti" Mr. Thomas: Didn't you get your board - — Yes, but I worked for it! The farm, she declared, was m a bad state, and she was allowed to live on it to keep the accounts. Kingsbury, she vowed, owed interest to her father's estate, but was not paying anything.; Later the wife alleged" that Kingsbury had frequently threatened to leave her. "Dozens of times he said to me, T am sick of things and I'm going to clear out,' and I told him I was agreeable that he should go." Mr. Thomas: Was that all that was said about 'it? — Yes. "We agreed to part for ever," Mrs. Kingsbury added. "No length of time was mentioned, but we both felt and decided m our own minds that it was for ever. He said he was going away and was going to get something else to do. Tlie farm was no good to him, he said, and I was no good to him, either, and he was decided to go right away." Mr. Thomas: And you agreed that he should go?—- Yes. And that is what you say was the agreement for you to separate?— Yes. You are quite sure you did not say sou would separate for two months, one year or two years, but for ever? — Yqs. "What he really did say was that he was sick of me, and wanted to go aAvay, and I said I waa quite agreeable for him \o go," the wife declared again. Mr. Thomas: And is that all that was said regarding the separation? — Yes. And yet he came back about six weeks later?* — Yes. Did he give any reason for coming back?— No.. Did he tell you about a position he had at Kaikoura, and say he wanted you to go with him? — No, he did not. "He told me he was broke, and the world was not as kind to him as he thought it would be," the wife went on. "He said he came back to see if we could live together again, and I told him it was no good, as we had decided to part. "We did not squabble about it, and I said it was no ■ use, ' because we had decided to separate." Mr. Thoriias: Is it not a fact that he pleaded for you to live with him? — No, I said I would not live with him under any consideration. Didn't he say he would go away and earn money and save it to make a home any time you wanted to go to him? — No. Is it not a fact that he said he would give you his address, m case you shoulc' decide to go back and live with him? — No. He did, m fact, write and give you his address, didn't he?— Yes, and I answered it. "It is too late now," Mrs. Kingsbury replied when counsel said Kingsbury had saved £300 and was prepared to give her a home. : She insisted that Kingsbury, when they separated,' had promised to main-

tain her. "He said that when he could afford to he wduld give me* something." Mr. Thomas: Is it likely that you told Mr. or Mrs. Hickman that you would go back to your husband if he were an engineer?-— No, it is iiot. This concluded the cross-examina-tion, and Mr. Van Asch questioned Mrs. Kingsbury on the state of the farm. When she and her husband separated, the farm was m a very bad condition, the woman replied, and Mr. Machin, general manager of the N.Z. Farmers' Co-operative Association, had told her that if they had a good man to manage it they might make a success of it. ' ** * . "In May, 1927, my husband had really no interest m the farm, as he had paid no interest to my father at any time," was Mrs. Kingsbury's concluding statement. The Avif e's mother, Elizabeth Boyd, was then called by Mr. Van Asch, and she said that she haa stayed on the farm with her daughter and son-in-

law from time to time, and had been there about a month before the couple separated, m May. Mr. Van Asch: Did your daughter and her husband live happily together? — No, they did not. Occasionally he would pack up and say he was going, and the conversation was that he was sick of everything and "sick of his wife. * She could not remember "lier daughter's exact reply to Kingsbury when he made this announcement, but she gathered that she was not opposed to him going; and believed it would be better if they parted. "I stayed there several times, and every time there would, be rows, and my daughter's husband would pack up. I can't remember exactly what my daughter said." Mr. Thomas (cross-examining): When did this conversation you speak of take place? — About four or five weeks before May, 1927. It was at this time, she admitted, that it was decided to put a manager on the farm~to see if it could be made to pay, and she was interested m the farm, as her late husband had a share m it. Mrs. Boyd also agreed that the manager was engaged sometime ih May, 1927. "If he hiad been living peacefully with his wife, he would have still been living on the farm. That was not, the reason for putting the manager m," she added. "They did not live happily together when I was there," Vera Muriel Dalziell, who had visited the couple on the farm, tpld the court. She was not related to either Kingsbury or his wife, she explained, but she had stayed

"Skk of Her"

with them, and the last time she was there was about two months before May, 1927. While witness was there she heard tallcof separation, and it was Kingsbury who suggested it. "He told Mrs. Kingsbury he was sick of it, and he would get out of it," added witness, and Mrs. Kingsbury had replied that he could go. She heard this sort of conversation on two occasions. > I "Once," said witness. "Kingsbury J drove away m the cart, but he did not pack up his clothes to go." The wife's case concluded, Mr. Thomas put the husband into the box, and he explained that before he was married he was m partnership with Mr. Boyd on a mixed farm of Sl6 acres. "After my marriage I continued on the farm with my wife," he continued. "When my father-in-law was alive, we were always very friendly, and there was no discord. My father-in-law did all the buying and selling*, and we were carrying along/ without losing. "After he died I managed the place for approximately two years, but that was the slump period, and we were not prosperous. An arrangement was made whereby a manager was appointed, and I understood he was to have charge for two years, and I was to evacuate the place and not interfere with him. ' "During the latter part of the time there were little disturbances with my wife, and they were generally led up to by financial distress. I had to go away and flnd a job, and my wife was to stay on the farm m the meantime. When I got a home she was to come to me." "It has been said," put in^Mr. Thomas, "that you told your wife you were sick of her, and that you were going away?" "That is not true," the husband replied. "The trouble was that they said I was not a competent man on the farm."

The first thing he did when he left the farm, Kingsbury explained, was to go to Methven on a potato-digging contract, and then he was offered a job on a mixed farm at Kaikoura. It was then, he declared, that he saw his wife and "pleaded with her to come away- to the job" "1 reckoned it was a good opportunity, and she said she had decided not to go," Kingsbury stated. "I told her I could not take the job if she would not come with me." It had not been agreed that he pay his wife maintenance, the husband claimed, and all he had agreed to do was* to "keep up the insurance policies." . "I do not gamble or waste my money," Kingsbury vowed m reply to Mr. Thomas, "and I have done as I promised and save.d, approximately £200 m three years." Mr. Thomas: Would you take your wife back? — Yes, if she had changed her mind, I would take her beck tomorrow! ' "I think she has been influenced by her mother," the husband added. "I would never nurse a grievance against anybody, and 'a, s j far as she is concerned, I am. still fond of her." "It is a fact, is it not, that you have not written to your wife since August 12, 1927?" demanded Mr. Van Asch. Kingsbury: Yes. And you liave not paid her any maintenance? — No. "I have kept up my insurance policy, which is m my name," added Kingsbury, "and if anything happened ' to me it would be a benefit to her." Mr. Van Asch: You got into financial difficulties with the farm m May, 1927, didn't you? — Yes, but it was never through my neglect. Do you deny that you said you were sick of her, arid that you were going to get out of it? — Yes, I deny it! "The wife was quite sweet to ' me when I went, and. she was sweet when I came back m July," Kingsbury declared, "but she was surprised, because I did not say I was coming back." Why did you go off the farm?— They considered I was an incompetent manager. Who are "they"? — Mrs. Boyd and the trustees. "She was at the bottom of it all," the husband stated', referring to his mother-in-law. Mr. Van Asch: Why do you say Mrs. Boyd was at the bottom of it all? — She wouldn't let my wife come back. She has always had complete influence over her. Mrs. Boyd was not the only person who thought you were an incompetent manager, was she; Mr. Machin confirmed it, didn't he? — Yes, I suppose he did. Is it a fact that your wife said she wouldn't live with you? — Yes, she said she wouldn't come away with me. Now, if she was quite "sweet" to. you m July, how do you account for her refusing to go away with you? — Well, I've told you! You put it down to Mrs. Boyd again? — Yes. "Oh, I see," said Mr. Van Asch, as he sat down. The Kingsburys' neighbor at Hanmer, George Bertley Hickman, was called to give evidence on behalf of the husband, and m reply to Mr. Thomas he stated that he and his wife had been quite friendly with them. Mr. Thomas: Did you hear a conversation between Mrs. Kingsbury and your wife? — Yes, Mrs. Kingsbury said her husband was a better engineer than a farmer. ' j "Who asked you to remember this conversation?" demanded the wife's counsel. Hickman: Mr. Kingsbury did. When? — About a week ago. "I was not asked to remember that statement, I was only asked what was said," Hickman amended when Mr. Van Asch pressed the point. "I told Kingsbury that his wife was prepai*ed to so back to him if he took on engineering, and he asked me if I was prepared to swear to that." Mr. Van Asch: Now, you knew that the Kingsburys did not get on together, didn't you? — I understood, they had their little differ- , ences, but I did not know that they were on ljad terms to this extent. The case concluded -with Hickman's evidence, and his Honor expressed the opinion that the wife's case must fail. "Subject to what you might say," the Judge addressed the wife's counsel, "I am not satisfied that the petitioner has proved her case — I mean on the facts .. . Petitioner rested her case on the allegation that on or about May, 1927, there was a verbal agreement to live separate and apart from each other, and that it had been m force for not less than three years ... I am not satisfied that an agreement to separate was entered into on or about the date mentioned, or upon any date. The petition must be dismissed for failure of proof." Upon the adjournment of the court, husband and wife conferred, and finally left the court together.