AN UNHAPPY MARRIAGE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3768, 1 June 1926, Page 18

AN UNHAPPY MARRIAGE.

LENGTHY SEPARATION CASE. WIFE ALLEGES DRUNKENNESS •*Thii 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 C. J. L. White, who uppeurcd for complainant in-a case ut tho City i’olice Court un Wednesday in which Alica Adamson Lockett proceeded against John William Lockett. separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders. Defendant had told her, Mr YVhite con tiiiucd of a land flowing with milk and honey, but 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 aunts.

Mr J. U. Bartholomew, S.M., was on the bench, and Mr W. G. Jday represented defendant.

Complainant said she was married lo defendant in January, 1919, in Ireland. They lived there for seven months, and then they camo 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 Jeers he obtained work through tho lepstriation Department he was drinking heavily. She supposed she would have «ot on well with her mother-in-law if she

had drunk as the latter did. When tier second child was born she said she would have to leave Lockett’s people,, and de fendant 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 hie food. Mr YVhite: 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 tPied to strangle her because sne did not take him home for ten. After defendant had been out of work for some time, witness obtained employment at the Koslyn Axilla, 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 year* ago there had been continual quarrelling. The children were terrified of their father* On New Year's Eve two years ago the had a girl friend staying with her. They wore lo meet her husband in town. Her girl friend said *ho had to go home for the New Year and left withes*. At 4 o’clock in the morning defendant and witness’s girl friend “strolled home.” Both wero drunk. Witness had secured employment at the Exhibition, her employer, named Groombridge, coining to board with her. Groombridge threatened to loavo later owing to defendant’s drinking habit#. 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. “It’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 YVhite: I profess to know a little about it.

The Magistrate: it’s not up to Shakespearean standard, Mr White?

Mr YVhite: I think not, sir. Witness said her employer left after Interference by defendant’s aunts. One of the aunt* tried to persuade hei to return to Ireland and leave the children behind, but witness refused to go without her children. She left Lockett, and had hod 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 M'Cartney on several occasions, and hnd interviewed him before she took up her position at the Exhibition again after having left it at her husband'* request Cross-examined by Mr Hay. YVitnes* said Lockett’s, people had given them the around for their house and had done the asphalting. When she left defendant she took rtrnie of the furniture with her. She had to sell some to keep her children. Lockett did not order her employer out when he wns 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. Defondat 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 things, and he had rone away saying he 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 offered 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 conrmlaints 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 beqp very good to complainant. Up to the time of the Exhibition there were verv 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 complainant insisted on Groombridge carving witness’s dinner Bbe seemed to enioy Groom bridge's company more than that of witness. After some trouble one night witness ordered Groombridge out of the house. He want away at 7 o’clock the following morning- Sister Nora had brought about a reconciliation between witness and his wife, but she was still discontented, and he went home one night to find the home almost emptv. Th° remainder of defendant’s evidence consisted of a vigorous denial of his wife’s allegations.

After Mr White had partlv cross-exam-ined defendant, th'* case, which began at 10 a.m., was adjourned et. 5 nm. sine die.