DIVORCE PETITION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23044, 21 November 1936, Page 8

DIVORCE PETITION

NGAPARA FARMER’S SUIT HEARING OF EVIDENCE CONCLUDED Further evidence was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday in the case in which David M'Culloch, a farmer, of Ngapara, petitioned for a divorce from his wife, Jean Rae Stirling M'Culloch, on the grounds of separa- < tion for three years. The whole of the remaining evidence was heard before his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy, and the case was adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on Monday. Mr G. T. Baylee appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent was represented by Mr J. G. Warrington and Mr J. T. Armstrong. Continuing his' evidence from the previous day, the petitioner said that ever since they had been married his wife had been afflicted by deafness, which had become progressively worse. While in England, he had i syringed her ears at her request, and two years later, in New, Zealand., she had accused him of causing her deafness through the syringing. They were separated in 1931, and about a week after the separation his wife pleaded with him to go back to her, but as he had a long experience of her promises, he refused to return. He went to see her for a short time, but she became abusive and called him a “ deserting wife-beater.” In reply to a question, witness said he had never seized his wife by the throat, nor had he at any time struck her on the eye and the nose.—To Mr Warrington, he said his wife did not go to town very frequently, as she complained that she had nothing to wear. He had never struck her. Evidence was also given by Sydney A. Angel concerning the separation order, John Rennie M'Culloch, the / petitioner’s father, and John Clive M'Culloch. son of the petitioner. THE WIFE’S EVIDENCE The respondent stated ip evidence * that the first trouble between them occurred in 1922, when her sister came over from Scotland. At that time her husband would often strike her on the head. Twice he gave her black eyes, and until 1929 there were isolated differences which were, the result of sudden fits of temper on her husband’s part. 'ln April, 1929, with her husband’s consent, she ordered from a Dunedin drapery store some clothes for the children as well,as some clothing material, the whole amounting, to about £lO. She was surprised when the goods did not arrive, and later, when she taxed her husband with having something to do with it, he became angry and struck her a smashing blow On the head. He then left home and lived for some time with an uncle, later shifting to a hut. Her husband returned to the house in December, 1929, witness continued, and in March, 1931, her brother-in-law and her sister, Mr and Mrs Hughes, came to stay With them. About a month later her husband offered, Hughes work, but she considered that the house was not large enough for all of them, and, as J; er husband would not give her any more money to provide for the extra number of persons, she asked them to go. There had been a good deal of domestic trouble at that time, including a quarrel during which her husband knocked her about and she hit him on the head with a whisky bottle, and when Mr and Mrs Hughes left M'Culloch left also. He had never lived with her since. INTERFERENCE BY RELATIVES 1 Witness then gave evidence of the , deed of separation entered into and of the later separation order made in the Magistrate’s Court. She attributed her domestic troubles to the interference of her husband’s relatives, especially his father and his uncle, to whom her domestic affairs were common, property. In reply to Mr Warrington, witness said her husband was always able to pay the monthly bills- as they came in. She said she had no recollection of ever receiving pocket money from her husband. As for his allegations about her purchases of silk stockings, she had bought only one pair at 355. On one occasion she had bought four pairs of shoes, but it was not true that B she had walked in all of them so that they could not bfe returned. She had never refused to cook meals for him, Frederick William Hughes, Mrs M'Culloch’s brother-in-law, said he haa always considered that the trouble in the M'Culloch family was caused by the husband. Evidence was also given by Margaret Grant M'Culloch and Anna Mackenzie M'Culloch, daughters of the parties. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court adjourned until 10.30 on Monday.