AN UNHAPPY MARRIAGE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19800, 27 May 1926, Page 15

AN UNHAPPY MARRIAGE.

LENGTHY SEPARATION CASE. WIFE ALLEGES DRUNKENNESS ' This is a case of a man going to the front and while on leave in Ireland telling a girl a fantastic tale and persuading her to marry him,” said Mr U. J. L. Vvhite, who appeared for camplainant in a case at the City Police Court yesterday in which Alice Adamson Lockett proceeded against John William Lockett for separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders. Defendant had told her, Mr White continued of a land flowing with milk and honey, hut when she came here the only thing which flowed freely was beer and whisky. Half his time defendant was out of work, and his wife had a supreme contempt for him She had also been subjected to the petty tyranny of two i aunts. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., was on the bench, and Mr W. G, Hay represented defendant. Complainant said she was married to defendant in January, 1919, in Ireland. They lived there for seven months, and then they came to New Zealand to live with respondent’s people. He received £72 gratuity money, which he had spent in racing and drinking instead of getting a home together. He obtained work in the following March. During the two years he obtained work through the Repatriation Department he was drinking heavily. She supposed she ' would have got on well with her mother-in-law if she had drunk as the latter did. When her second child was born she said she would have to leave Lockett’s people, and defendant built a house on a section given him by his aunt. Witness had not been consulted in regard to the design of the house. Defendant engaged in peddling, but he brought home no money. They were at that time in debt for £6O on the house. Defendant- depended on his aunts for his food. Mr White: But he was still able to get money for drink? Witness: Oh, he could always get money for that! His aunt and mother gave him money. Complainant, continuing, said he struck her on several occasions when he was drunk. One night when she was at his aunt's he tried to strangle her because she did not lake him home for tea. After defendant had been out of work for some time, witness obtained employment at the Koslyn Mills, where she worked for a year and nine months. Defendant was able to get work there, too. His aunts looked after the children, and she did the sewing for both. Since she had come to New Zealand seven years ago there had been continual quarrelling. The children were terrified of their father. On New Year’s Eve two years ago she bad a girl friend staying with her. They were to meet her husband in town. Her girl friend said she had to go homo for the New Year and left witness. At 4 o’clock in the morning defendant and witness’s girl friend ‘‘strolled home.” Both were drunk. Witness had secured employment at the Exhibition, .her employer, named Groombridge, coming to board with her. Groombridge threatened to leave later owing to defendant’s drinking habits. After persuasion and promises on Lockett s part the boarder was persuaded to remain. One night defendant said he had an inspiration, and wrote some poetry about her employer. ‘‘lt's not very beautiful,” said Mr White, as he handed a copy to Mr Hay. Mr Hay: And do you consider yourself a judge of poetry? Mr White; I profess to know a little about it. The Magistrate: It’s not up to Shakespearean standard Mr White? Mr White: I think hot, sir. Witness said her employer left after interference by defendant’s aunts. One of the aunts tried to persuade her to return to Ireland and leave the children behind, but witness refused to go without her. children. She left Lockett, and had had no money from him since Christmas. Constable M’Cartney’s wife had now put her in a shop in South Dunedin- In the course of her evidence witness said she had consulted Constable iPCartpey on several occasions, and had interviewed him before she took up her position at the Exhibition again after having left it at her husband’s request. Cross-examined by Mr Hay, Witness said Lockett’s people had given them the ground for their house and had done the asphalting. When she left defendant she took some of the furniture with her. She had to sell soma to keep her children, Lockett did not order her employer out when he was boarding with them. It was not true that defendant objected to her employer’s presence in the house. Constable M’Cartney said he had known the defendant for a number of years. He was a man very much addicted to drink, and, in witness’s opinion, was lazy. Defendat had come to witness and stated that his wife had threatened to leave him because of his drinking habits. Defendant had admitted that he drank too much, and had stated that if he gave up his habits his wife would overlook thing's, and he had gone away saying ho was going, to give up drinking.’ About two years ago complainant came to witness and said she could not live with Lockett because he was drinking and knocking her about. Lockett then came to witness and said he did , not care a snap of his fingers for his wife, and said his aunts and uncle had ojfered to send her Home. All he wanted was the children. Defendant said'his wife had looked after the children well. If he drank it was his business. About 10 months ago he offered to take out a prohibition order against himself- This he had failed to do. Again he came to witness and said he was having trouble again, and stated he was quite willing to occupy a separate room from his wife in the house. He said he was going to live a better life, and hoped by that means to regain the lost affection of his wife. Defendant’s aunts had come to witness several times with complaints, which showed that they were interfering. Mr Hay, in opening the case for the defence, said Groombridge was the cause of all the trouble. Defendant, in evidence, said his people had been very good to complainant. Up to the time of the Exhibition there were very few quarrels between him and his wife, and it was a surprise to him to go home and find his house “stripped.” Witness “took a glass of beer,” but. was not in the habit of getting drunk. From the start he did not like Groombridge. and did not want him in his house. Witness’s wife walked about the Exhibition with Groombridge. Groombridge called her “Eileen'” and she called him “Fred,” and Groombridge desired the children to call him “Uncle Fred.” On Christmas Day comnlainant insisted on Groombridge carvine witness’s dinner, She seemed to enjoy Groombridge'* company more than that of witness. After some trouble one night witness ordered Groombridge out of th n house. He went away at 7 o’clock tlie following morning- Sister Nora had brought about a reconciliation between witness and his wife, but. she was still discontented, and h° went borne one night to find the home almost empty. The remainder of defendant’s evidence consisted of a vigorous denial of his wife’s allegations. After Mr White had partly cross-exam-ined defendant, the ease, which began at 10 n.m., was adjourned at 5 p.m. sine die.