AGED COUPLE’S TROUBLES

Otago Witness, Issue 3755, 2 March 1926, Page 18

AGED COUPLE’S TROUBLES

PETITION TOR DIVORCE. AFTER 41 YEARS. The attention of the sitting of the Supreme Court on Thursday, at which his Honor Mr Justice Sim presided, woe occupied with the hearing M a petition for a divorce brought by Robert Steedman, the respondent being Mary Hedderwick SteedMr E. J. Anderson appeared for petitioner, and Mr C. J. L. White for the respondent. Mr Anderson, in stating the case for the petitioner, eaid a deed of separation between the parties had , 'een in force for some years. The parties were married by the Rev. Dr Stuart at ICnox Church on November 2i, 1884. There were five children of the marriage, and the parties had resided in various places. The evidence would bo that right from the commencement of their married life conditions were not all that they might have been The petitioner in June, 1913, had his suspicions aroused, and shortly afterwards a deed of separation was arranged and signed. Strangely enough the parties had been more or less friendly, and at one time an attempt was made to effect a reconciliation. The petitioner had been prepared to make a home for the respondent at Invercargill, but nothing came of the proposal. Robert Steedman (petitioner], who said he was a blacksmith’s striker, gave evidence in support of his counsel’s et-ateme.-t. His family were all grown up and supporting themselves. He resided at Caversham from 1911 until June, 1913. On June 181913, he entered into a deed of separation. The conditior of his married life up to February 11 was that there were the usual family squabbles. In February, 1911, he was warned about his wife’s conduct. He was then a 'ailway employee, and came home at week-ends. He taxed his wife with entertaining some man in the forenoons after he went to work. She denied the accusation. He had trouble with his household accounts, which were usually in the kitchen, and his wife said she would look after them. Ho gave his wife £9 12s every fortnight, and he retained only 4s or 5s a week. Later he retained his wages, and his wife objected. A separation was arranged at Mr Hanlon’s office. His wife suggested the separation should last for six months. He paid maintenance regularly to his wife until 1918. when he was advised by his solicitor to cease payments. This was renewed by order of the court, and he was paying up to 30s per week. He- saw respondent frequently, and he and his wife used to go to amusements together. He set up a home at Invercargill and -anged through the Railway Department. b*- whom he was then employed, to get his furniture brought from Dunedin to Invercargill November, 1918, he received a letter from his wife asking him to come up and make arrangements for the parties to live together. He received further letters from his wi._», which he produced. He had ever at any time improperly treated his wife. She was very cold towards him. To Mr White: Tie was 04 years of age, and had been married over 41 years. He ha 1 done everything he possibly could to get his wife to return, but had failed. He thought he would be more free if he had a divorce. He had no desire to marry again. lie hoped by these proceedings to be relieved of supporting his wife. She was at present receiving the old age pension. All the members of the family were married. His son .Tiin deid in 1912, an* a month after his death he obtained positive proof of his wife’s misconduct. Witness denied having a violent temper. He also -denied attempting to throttle his wife. He did not know whether his wife had throat trouble. In order to assist in bringign about a reconciliation he had asked the minister of their church to come along to the home, and give his wife some advice. On one occasion he paid a surprise visit t otlie house, and discovered that his wife was making preparations for a T>arty. Respondent had always been a good mother to her children. Henry Steedman, a son of the parties, said that he lived with his parents until 1908, and had visited his parents’ home since that time fairly regularly. Witness was not on good terms with his mother, lie alleged that she had caused mischief between himself and his wife. He had never seen his father strike his mother. There was nothing more than a little “nagging.’’ Albert Hamilton said that he lived from 1911 to 1913 in Railway street, Caversham, the Steedmans being his neighbours. He had seen Mrs Steedman waving to a “certain party,” and he also saw this party enter the house.. Witness had informed petitioner of what he had seen. Mr White, in opening the case for the respondent said the defence would . be that a separation had been obtained through a wrongful act on the part of the petitioner. He relied on the case of Sehlagcr v. Schlager, a recent decision of the Full Court of the Dominion, which laid it down that it was not necessary to prove an actual matrimonial offence prior to separation, but that, wrongful acts or conduct on the part of the petitioner, which were the cause of the separation, would be an absolute bar to the proceedings. Counsel contended that tlie present case stronger than the Schlager case, and he would endeavour to prove an actual matrimonial offence —viz., persistent cruelty. Respondent said that a fortnight before her last baby was born her husband came into the room and grabbed her by the throat. She still felt the effects of that. Her husband said he hail seen a man coming out of the house. Her husband was always of a jealous disposition, although he had no reason to be. He accused witness of speaking too long at the door oi the church which they attended when a hymn book was being handed to her. on that occasion he thrashed her when she got home. She denied that she had run her husband into debt, lie accused her of extravagance. Her daughter’s friends used to arrange surprise parties at witness's home, anil this was no expense to witness. She denied (hat she had any man colling at her homo. Petitioner’s treatment of witness affected her -daughters health. He was a violent tempered man, and he used to roll on the floor in tits of temper. She had not kept any of the letters which her husband I|M written to her. To Mr Anderson: She met her husband at Peace time. She was talking to him in the Octagon. He wanted to stay at her home but sne would not allow him to do

so. She did not tell her medical man that her Lad throat was caused by petitioner’* ill-usage. Neither did she tell her medical man that the health of her daughter was impaired owing to petitioner’s ill-treatment of her (witness). She wrote to her husband because she was in fear of him. She knew a man named Lees, who was a friend of her daughters. When her husband was working in Invercargill she was quite willing to return to him, because she was anxious to live peaceably One of her daughters was married about Christmas, 1924, and a petition had been presented to her a few month’s later, for a restitution of conjugal rights. This daughter was at present living with witness. His Honor: Why do you object to your husband getting a divorce?—Witness: 1 certuinly object, because he only wants to get married again. I know what he is after. Mary Dark, a married woman residing at Invercargill, said she was a daughter of the parties. Her father’s conduct towards her mother had been most cruel. When her brother Jim was alive he afforded them some protection. Her father was a most ovil-minded man, especially towards her mother. She bad on occasions to go into her mother’s bedroom and take her into her (witness’s) room. W itncss would have to barricade her bedroom door with a chair. She had seen her father throw a chair at her mother. Her father used to disguise himself and go peering round the house at nights. Ho was very suspicious of her mother. _ Her father's behaviour brought about witness’s ill-heal'h. so much so that she had to leave horn . Her sister also suffered in health throurh petitioner’s conduct. This was all the evidence. Mr White said with regard to the letters written by the respondent and produced, it mav have been that the pariies were willing to become reconciled. The only evidence of misconduct on the part of the respondent was that of the witness Hamilton. who saw a man wave to her once, and who also saw him go into her house once. Taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration petitioner was not entitled to a. decree. Mr Anderson thought that trouble arose early in the married life of the parties. There apparently had been trouble on both sides, but there had not been undue cruelty on the -part of the petitioner. It may be that petitioner was of a iealous disposition. The violence alleged against petitioner was not proved. His Honor asked that in the event of the petitioner being granted a decree was he in a position to give security for the payment of maintenance to the respondent during her life time. He was not yet sure whether he would give the petitioner relief. If a decree were granted petitioner would probably have to give respondent more than the 22s per week ho was at presnt allowing her. Mr Anderson said petitioner was at present in steady employment, but could not give security as suggested by his Honor. His Honor said he would take time to consider the case.