WIFE SEEKS SEPARATION

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11981, 23 February 1932, Page 7

WIFE SEEKS SEPARATION

CASE AT EKETAHUNA BROOKES v. BROOKES. The case Brookes v. Brookes, an application by the wife for a separation order, which was commenced before Xmas and adjourned to see if some, agreement was not possible between the parties, was before Mr J. Miller, S.M., again in the Eketaliuna Court ou Friday, says the Express. Mr Page, for Airs Brookes, said the position, was that Mrs Brookes had made two offers: (i) That they should separate and the children be put in a home; (2) that Brookes should take one child and Mrs Brookes- the other and Brookes should pay 10s a week maintenance, this to lie increased when things improved. Mr G. H. Smith, for Brookes, said that defendant was prepared for Airs Brookes to come home. He could not afford to* pay maintenance. Brookes had endeavoured to get Airs Brookes to return and if the third party in the case kept away all would be well between the parties. Mr Aliller said that he was reluctant to express his views at the commencement of the hearing, as he hoped that the parties would come together. However, it appeared that this was not to he so. Evidence was then taken, the first witness called being, Ronald Campbell, who stated he was a neighbour, and until lately lie had visited the Brookes home quite often at Brookes’s invitation. He had also gone to dances with them, but at these he rarely saw Brookes until the dance was over. The first time lie knew there was any illfeeling was when lie called for lAilk, and after some words, Brookes told him to stop away when he (Brookes) was not at home. AYitness used to help milk when Brookes was away. Witness detailed other visits and disputes and alleged occasions on which Brookes had illtreated Airs Bookes. He detailed a visit to Pahiatua, followed by attending the pictures in Eketaliuna. On this occasion Brookes stayed behind at Hamua. and later turned up allegedly drunk and caused a scene. The next morning Brookes shouted him a beer. Witness described other incidents, one of which culminated in Brookes going for the police. He was never near the house after that, although he saw Brookes assault Airs Brookes two or three times at later dates. His relations with Airs Brookes had always been neighbourly and nothing more. To Mr Smith : He thought Brooke, suffered from other than war troubles. He knew that Brookes was ■flery jealous of him, hut lie had no reason. Alice Poeock. sister of Airs Brookes, gave evidence as to illtreatment. To Air Smith she said she knew there was trouble between Brookes, his wife and another party. Mr Smith said the wife was out for separation and maintenance. The trouble was not between the couple, but the third party was to blame, and Airs Brookes had fanned the flames and had done annoying things. The third party had been extremely foolish in attempting to interfere between the couple. Air Smith submitted that the evidence against Brookes was insufficient.

The magistrate commented that Airs Brookes had asked for a separation with maintenance on the grounds of persistent cruelty. Hie actions alleged had not taken placewithout some cause, and the other side would have to be heard in explanation. So far he had only had the wife’s views.

John Percy Brookes then gave evidence that he had been married for nine years and had always got on very well with his wife until the last twelve months, when disputes arose over Campbell whom he asked to keep away from the place. He had returned to the house on one occasion and found Campbell and his wife together. Campbell then said: “You have accused us of carrying on so we, may as well.”

Witness told Campbell to go and tried to get his wife inside but Campbell entered the house through two doors and grappled with him. On this occasion the police were called, hut Campbell had left before the police arrived. He had never hit his wife, and any bruises -she had must have been self-inflict-ed. She had assaulted him with a shovel and inflicted a deep wound in his leg. He had never ordered His wife to leave the house and lie had never pulled her out of bed. He had tried to catch Campbell visiting his house blit Campbell was too ' smart for him.

John Monaghan, brother-in-law to Brookes, said from all appearances the couple seemed to have got on well enough together until recently. He had endeavoured to straighten tilings out between the parties. Vv hen Brookes sought liis advice he told h*m to try and settle the trouble between themselves. then he had seen the parties with the object of fixing tilings up. Camphell came to him later and asked to be relieved of a promise not to go to Brookes’ house, as Brookes was knocking Airs Brookes about. He advised Campbell not to interfere. He was more concerned about the children than the parents. Brookes was more merry than vicious when in drink. YYitness thought Airs Brookes was quite capable of holding her own in a dispute. Mr Smith, addressing the Court, said the whole trouble was the third party. The Alagistrate said he had not the first portion of the case in December and he would reserve his decision.