APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL SEPARATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2676, 28 June 1905, Page 14

APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL SEPARATION.

the City Police Court on the 20th .inst., oefore Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M. V Annie Raton applied for a separation order against her husband, Harold Herbert Eaten, on the ground of wilful neglect io provide his wife and two children with adequate means oi support, and she"~ further asked that the court should make such order for maintenance as it lOEsidefed 'desirable.— !*lr Enislie appeared in Support of the application, and Mr Irwin to oppose —Mr Emslie stated that- the parties were married about 11 .years ago, and that there were two children by the marriage. ■The wife complained that her husband, ever iir.ee they were married had Scarcely ever sup- - plied her x>r their children with reasonable " nveans^of support. Owing to this fact she had ' been compelled to leave him, but about three • years ago she had returned to him at Alex-' andia, but he agaiii 'failed to pay for her ' jaaiuteuanee, and after six months she was ■ again forced to leave ■ Mm, and"*" return with •' her two children to her mother. During 'the ' past two and a-half years the husband had contributed not more than £8 towards th^ Bupport of his wife and family although he was in employment and earning 8s or 10s per' ■ flay, and had it not been fcr the jcocl offices of the mother ihe — children would be m the fuduidrJal School. — Annie Eator corroborated • the opening statements of counsel, and stated that the children by the marriage wore aged respectively seven and eight years. The husband, who was a miner, was in debt when she married him, and when she went to Alexandra, at' his request to live -with him, he had a -house 'for her, but there waa little fur-ni-fure in it, and as ha, could not furnish it and keen household expenc-es going she suggested that he should pay for the hoard and icsidence of herself and children at the hotel, a" proposal which he agreed to, but he failed to -pay, and she was compelled to leave him , and -again , return to her mother. Her husband' was unkind ' to her, and was always -thieatening to kill her and her two children. ,— Under 'cross.-examination by Mr Irwin, "Witness stated that she knew a, man Mined William Dumfie, at present in South Africa, but she had never received letters from him of a , familiar nature. iMr Irwin here read a letter. signed " Witt," purporting to have been sent from South Africa to witness. The letter con- ( toired a number of endearing epithets,_and was alleged- to have bean received by a brother 1 of defendant in "Wellington, and afterwards ! forwarded by him to his brother in Otago.) Witness affirmed that the handwriting of the letter was not that of Mr Dumfie, that he was not on such terms of intimacy that he wou'd ivrite in sxicb a way to her, and thai the only ifUjfir xeceiveii nou ham was, oae Ux kw. s^s.'isx, „

iv relation to business matters. — Further crossexamined, "Witness denied that a man named Paterson had brought a bottle of beer to her apartment at the hotel at Alexandra, or that she had ever drank bser or wine with him, or that she went regularly to church with" him. She had, however, told her husband that Mr Paterson had walked to church frith her, and that he had at the hotel brought her a glass of soda smd milk. She was friendly with Mr Patterson, But not familiar ■with him. — Evidence was given by applicant's mother, MatiLclu. U-esta, as to her support of her daughter and her two children. — Mr Irwin submitted thai the- proceedings, instead of being taken under" the summary separation jurisdiction, should have been taken under The Destitute Persons Maintenance Act, anil that in the case before th.c court there was no c&rroborafian of the applicant's statements. The facts were the husband was willing and' had provided his wife and children with a home and maintenance, but the wife was of a domineering disposition, and went home to her mother whenever she felt inclined to* She had sold up the home at Waipori, and she left her husband at Alexandra because he remonstrated with her about her conduct in going to church with another man, and also about her conduct with others in the hotel. On one occasion when lie offered her ill she refused to accept it, and told him she wanted neither him nor his money, and on another occasion when he forwarded htr -£5 she returned JE3 to blm. As to the South African letter, the applicant's husband would be more than pleased to ieam that it was not for his wife, but circumstances pointed to that letter being for her, as there was no other Annie m the family. The applicant .admitted that her sister had received a letter from the person concerned, and the production of that letter vould, he contended, show whether both. letters were written by the one person.— Mr Emsiie pointed out "that there was noth%g to- connect the letter with the envelope wSh the South African post-mark; there was no rsme signed except " Will," and the letter had not been produced until the 1 coniplainant had* " in spite of defendant's ontreaties, mtiniated her intention of going on with the proceedings. — In reply to a question from the Bench Mrs Eaton stated that her husband had struck, her en more than one 'occasion.— Defendant stated that he spent a.ll his earnings it Alexandra on bis wife and family, and that the reason ■of their disagreement was principally her preference to reside with her mother. During the first two or three y?ars of their married life a servant was kept in their home at Waipori. but she bro*ke up that home in order to <*o to her mother, who was licensee of the Terminus Hotel at Outrani. At her request he came there to hei. and afienwcls. whon his wife'? mother had an lm*al at Slnag Point and another ra

tho Oamaru district, he managtfS one of the places for her. Hs then went to Alexandra <is the result of a family disagreement, but his wife refused to go with him, and ho then said that if Blie preferred to remain with her family they must support her as "119 would not. His wife admitted to him last month, when he went to see "her, thus, she had previously had a letter from a man named "William in South Africa. She then said " You are a cur of a man, or you would not ask mo to come back and live with you after getting that letter." He had never struck his wife, but on the other hand she had struck him with a stick, and leit a mark. — Ci oss-examined, he said that he had never told his wife that he had had the letter in. his j-ossession for som,s> time. — His Worship said he would say on the face of it, that his opinion was the "South African letter was not for the plaintiff, but for someone else entirely, that was if there was somtihing else behind it, that was not before the court. The caw v;as brought under " The Summary Separation Act, 1896," and before bringing cases before the court under this act the greatest consideration should be given to them, as the. 1-cwers entrusted to the bench were of a seiious and lesponsible nature. The caso. before the couft was one that should have been brought under,, the Destitute Persons Act, and he did not' feel justified with ihe evidence before him in granting the application foi separation, and the application would be lefused.