A WIFE’S PETITION

Otago Witness, Issue 3519, 23 August 1921, Page 21

A WIFE’S PETITION

NICHOLSON v. NICHOLSON. PETITION FOK JUDICIAL SEPARATION. In the Supreme Court on Friday, before his Honor Air Justice Sim and a jury of 12, Eliza Nicholson, who was represented by Mr C. G. White, petitioned for a judicial separation from her husband, William Nicholson, farmer, Hampden. Mr J. B. Lallan represented the respondent. Mr \\ bite said the petition was for a judicial separation on tiie ground that the respondent had been guilty of persistent cruelty towards petitioner. The parties were married on June 14, 1915. At that time petitioner was a widow and respondent a widower. Petitioner before her marriage was a teacher at Waimakarua, in receipt of a substantial salary enabling her to keep herself and her two daughters. She also had a free house. After the parties were married they lived at Hampden, where respondent had been a farmer for many tears. They lived there till October, 1920, except for certain short intervals when petitioner found it necessary to leave her husband owing to the state of her health, brought about by the conduct of her husband. During the most of their married life, and particularly in 1918, 1919, and 1920, respondent habitually used abusive and threatening language to his wife, and conducted himself in a most insulting and brutal manner. On several occasions he struck the petitioner and locked her out of the house. She had had to sleep, in the bush. He made certain accusations against petitioner that were absolutely untrue. Her health eventually gave way, and she left him in 1918. In response to his persistent requests she resumed cohabitation with him, but he continued his cruelty, and she again left him in 1919 for six weeks. She returned to him at Christmas the same year, and left him finally last October. The respondent denied that he had been guilty of cruelty. The evidence, however, would show that he had carried out a systematic course of vindictive treatment. The petitioner was quite at a loss to understand the cause for respondent’s conduct. Mr White called the petitioner. She stated that she had been struck by respondent on several occasions, and had been locked out of the house. Respondent frequently called out open insults to her in the streets. Cross-examined by Mr Callan, petitioner said that respondent openly insulted her in the Hampden streets on more than half-a-dozen occasions, calling out from his gig. He did not c'o so when there was anybody about. Counsel read extracts from numerous letters from petitioner to respondent on the occasions when she left him, and asked if the terms of affection were in keeping with her allegations regarding his conduct. Petitioner said that respondent had shown great repentance and was full of promises; also he was ill and she was sorry for him. She had not kept any of his own letters. She regarded letters as sacred, and did not think she would have brought them into court. She had been ready to do her part if he would do his. Fela Marshall, daughter of petitioner, and a medical student, said that from the first respondent opposed the petitioner. Petitioner had a great' deal of work to do, and was without assistance in the house. Eventually petitioner refused to ccok for the men in the fields. Respondent was very angiv about it, and tried to bully petitioner into doing it. He got into terrible rages, and when in that condition he used the most appalling language witness had ever heard from anyone, and rushed about banging doors and throwing things out of his way. Ho deliberately made work for petitioner in the house, and his table manners increased the burden. Petitioner became very run down, and she was sometimes quite hysterical. Witness said that they often left the house when they could not stand matters any longer. Witness paid visits to the home in June and September, of 1920. In September petitioner was very run down. Respondent used foul and filthy language in witness’s presence frequently. So lar as witness, herself, and her sister, were concerned, respondent treated them all right. To Mr Callan: Her stepfather had never been harsh to her. She had, however, heard him repeatedly use abominable language to petitioner. She had never seen him threaten petitioner or strike her. Respondent had made certain accusations regarding petitioner in witness’s presence. He frequently behaved like a wild beast, and this conduct would last sometimes for three weeks. When there were strangers in the house he could always control himself. Elsie Marshall gave evidence as to her mother’s apparent unhappiness, and frequent outbursts of anger on the nart of respondent, with bad language. Witness thought her mother was afraid of the respondent. She used to cry a lot, and was hysterical. When petitioner went away in 1918 witness was at the home and went with her. There had been trouble, and matters had become unbearable for petitioner. Witness knew of her own knowledge that respondent’s conduct was of a violent nature. Ilis habits were calculated to annoy and torment petitioner. To Mr Lallan: Respondent, never spoke harshly to her or to her sister as he did to their mother. She would contradict respondent if he said she went to his room and said: “Dad, be kind to mum; I know she is hard to get on with.” To Mr White: There would be no truth in the statement that her mother was hard to get on with. Any quarrel was always started by respondent. Petitioner would sometimes make an effort to answer back and uphold herself. Evidence taken in Christchurch was read bv the registrar. It dealt mainly with the terms upon which petitioner agreed to return to respondent from Mount Cook. This closed the ease for petitioner. Mr Callan said it was usual at that stage tr, give an outline of what the ovidoneo for tho respond, nt would he, but he did not propose to burden the jury with an addrr c s. The story of cruelty told by, and on behalf, of petit ionet would be entirely denied. Respondent said he was 76 years of ago last June. He had lived around I ho Hampden quarter for over 50 year*. He absolutely denied habitually using offensive language to his- wife, and denied ever using a certain term to her -pitting upon her, or striking her. He also denied ever locking

her out. She was accustomed to go away trom the house leaving everything open, and to stay away for several days and nights. Sometimes while she was absent he would himself have to go away, and then he locked the house up. Respondent knew where to find the key. He never accused his wife of** being- guilty of adultery. Respondent was questioned as to an occasion on which his wife went to Fort Chalmers and afterwards met him in Dunedin, spending the whole of an afternoon with him in the Triangle talking over matters. They spent the next two or three days together in Dunedin, and were photographed together. Respondent also gave evidence as to the agreement come to at Mount in regard to her returning home. This included a motorcar. He purchased one, but as the result of an accident he decided to get a Ford with a colonial body, and soid the car. Petitioner, when she learned what had occurred, made a fuss and he had to cancel the sale. The car was in his wife’s name, lie did not know where it was now; bis wife sold it while he was away. To Mr White : Ho admitted being quick in temper; it did not last long, and he was never violent, nor was he often in a temper. As far as bad language was concerned he never used anything worse than a “damn.” He never used a single word that would offend the two girls. Respondent denied ever having agreed to put the house in his wife’s name. The Rev. R. 11. Blair, Presbyterian minister at Hampden for the past, four years, said that the parties were members of his church and both friends of his own. He had seen them together frequently; at times he had thought them the most devoted of couples, and at other limes relations seemed to bo strained. lie had attempted reconciliation between the parties, but without success. Evidence was also given bv William Wright, for many years employed about the doors by respondent, and by Elizabeth Hitchcock, who was called in front time to time to wash and clean. Both witnesses stated’that they had never heard respondent abusive to his wife. Mrs Hitchcock said there were frequently signs that something was wrong, the -parties sitting quite silent at .table. On one occasion petitioner remained in her room for six weeks. Learned counsel in the case of Eliza Nicholson v. William Nicholson, of Hampden, addressed the jury, Mr C. G. White for the petitioner, and Mr J. B. Lallan for respondent. His Hollos, in Ins charge to the jury, explained that petitioner asked for an order to live separately and apart from her husband, which imposed upon respondent an obligation to maintain iter for the rest of her life. She did not ask for a dissolution of the marriage. The only question for the jury was whether the respondent, had been guilty of cruelty to petitioner, whether petitioner had proved her allegations of cruelty. His Honor went ‘through the evidence carefully, stressing the points. He dealt with the correspondence put in on behalf of respondent, and pointed out that one of the petitioner’s letters —that from Pert Chalmers, before she went to Mount Cook —showed that certain of her grievances certainly existed then, and that she sought to impose terms to remedy them before she could think of returning to respondent. His Honor also dealt with the evidence of petitioner’s sister-in-law, taken jin Christchurch, in regard to the state of petitioner’s health when she went, to Mount Cook, and the terms entered into with respondent before her return to Hampden. The jury retired at noon and returned half an hour later with an answer that respondent had been guilty of cruelty to petitioner. Mr White moved for a decree for judicial separation, and this was granted, respondent being ordered to pay costs on the highest scale.