NOT A HAPPY PAIR.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12428, 22 August 1933, Page 2

NOT A HAPPY PAIR.

Sr?AKAT?ON SOUGHT. COURT DISMISSES COMPLAINT. In the Pahiatua Magistrate’s Court vesteidav morning, before Mr J Miller S.M., Miaud Georgina Rvam iMr G. Harold Smith! made complaint against Albert Edwaid Stanclen or liyam (Mr S. T. Inmey) firstiv for maintenance, separation and 'guardianship on the grounds (1) of failing to maintain and (2) of oersistent cruelty; and secondly complaint for a- maintenance order in respect of the children. When the complainant stepped into the box to give her testimony the first question put to her by Mr G. H. Smith was: ‘;How have you been getting on with your husband ?” "No good,” was the quick retort. “He was alright for a while but not since.” Mr Smith; “Just occasionally? - . During the last six months how have you been getting on?” Witness: “Worse than ever. About three weeks ago he turned me out.” Counsel: “'What happened?” Witness: “What happened? We told me he would not work to maintain my 'kids.' He had to work for himself'. He told me to get out and take the ‘kids’ with me. I had two boys m bed ill at the time.” Counsel : “How many children have you ?” Witness: “I had six when I married him.” Asked when the last act of alleged cruelly occurred she said it was at the tea table about four weeks ago. They were having tea one Sunday night and defendant wanted one of the hoys, aged eight years, to go and fill the teapot from a big kettle of boiling water which was on an open fire. Witness told liim the boy was too small to do- this and it would be better for one of the bigger boys to do it. Defendant said the first boy would do it or he would know why and he called the lad a certain name. “The boy- up with a crust,” she added, “and hit his father on the side of the face. His father flew" into a temper and picked up a two-foot piece of stick (produced i and threw it at the boy, striking him on the side of the head and cutting it open.” Witness produced the blood-stained shirt taken afterwards off her son and thrust it over on to the Bench for a close inspection but Mr Smith said that if it was held a little further away the Magistrate could see it just as well. She took her boy to the chemist’s shop afterwards and had his head dressed. Then she went to Constable F. Burrell and reported the matter to him. In reply to a question, complainant made a certain serious allegation concerning her husband. She also was emphatic that he used bad language and she produced several samples of it, written down. The Magistrate: “Were there any acts of violence towards you?” Witness: “He has hit me occasionally in the street but that was over a little matter between ourselves.” She confessed that her life had been a very unhappy one during the whole time she -was married. The house was hers when he married her. From her late husband’s estate she got a small income of £5 8s 4d per month. Her husband gave her his money each week (apart from his pocket money), but usually asked for most of it back. Counsel: “Is there any sort of affection between your husband and the children?” Complainant: “He doesn’t like the children.” She added that he had on frequent occasions made certain aspersions, when he lost his temper. Questioned by Mr S. T. Tinney complainant agreed that she was obtaining the children’s family allowance from the Government of just over £1 per week. She conceded that- her husband gave her all he could but he used to ask for it back. She admitted going to the pictures sometimes twice a week with defendant. She went last Saturday, “but not on his money.” It was true that her husband had given her some money (two lots) since the issue of the summons. Mr Tinney: “Last harvesting he gave you £8 4s 9d ?” Witness: “He never did. He had £1 for himself at Xmas and bought me a bag for 6s, which he tore up soon after in a temper.” M r Tinney: c ‘Was all that at the end of a flaming big row?”—“It was.” Mr Tinney: “Did you stick up for yourself in these rows?”—“I - was going to look after my children." Mr Tinney: “I understand that a relative has been the cause of the trouble? She lives two doors away and is frequently running, in to your place ?" Complainant stoutly denied this. “At any rate/’ she added, “why should she not come in to shield me?” Questioned further complainant Supplied the Court with a rapid account of a quarrel which occurred fretweeui /defendant and flhis relative. “He called her a wicked word,” she said, “and she threw a cup of tea over him. And be threw the saucer back.” Complainant told of an incident when her husband struck her too. “It was over a religious fellow/' she continued. Mr Tinney: “Was be trying to teach you religion?" Complainant: “No, only friendship." She conceded that her husband was a jealous type. Mr Tinney: “Of your men friends? iWhat was the religious fellow’s name?" (Witness supidied the Dame). Counsel; “A young chap?"— “Yes, a young chap." (She mentioned the body to which she alleged he belonged). Mr Tinney: “Are you very friendly with a side-show chap?" Witness: “I knew him for years before my husband and married my husband instead of him."

Counsel: “Do you get any letters from him?"—“Yes, only friendship letters occasionally." Mr Tinney: “Did he ever suggest that you leave your husband and go wit h him?" Witness: “That’s my business." The Ma gist rate : “Y on mu st tell the Court." Witness: “Yes, he did." Counsel: “Did your husband ever want to make it up?”—"Yes, he did. But I’m not going to.” Counsel: “Your husband f-ays you are of a very sulky disposition and your temper lasts three or four days.” Complainant said she only refrained from speaking to defendant after their quarrels to avoid further argument. She made certain admissions. She denied purchasing articles for a man who had been employed in the district. Reverting to the cruelty charge against the boy the Magistrate said : “Your children, are they hard to control ?"—• No." The Magistrate: “The boy must have been to throw a crust of bread at his father." Witness: “Any boy would when he was called the name he was." The Magistrate remarked that at the age of eight a boy should scarcely understand or appreciate the word. Mr Tinney: “In your rows you gave him as good as he gave you? You swear at him, too?" To the Magistrate, complainant denied using the same language as that used to her by defendant ; not to the same extent at any rate. The Magistrate: “Do you swear?" Witness: “Of course I do. Why shouldn’t i r" Answering Mr Tinney complainant said definitely that she was not prepared to go back with her husband, “as long as I’ve got a pair of bauds and legs to work for myself." Mr Smith said that complainant was not going to ask for maintenance. There ought to be a mutual separation. He did not think there would he much dispute about the facts. They were living like cat and dog. , The defendant, Albert Edward Jj tan den, or Ryam, then gave evidence. Mr Smith : “Are you fond of your wife ?" Witness: “Yes, I am." Mr Smith : “You want to continue to live with her?"—“Yes, 1 do." Counsel: “Are you living, happily with her?" Defendant: “Well, at times we are and at times we are not. She is listening to other people. That’s where the trouble is." Counsel: “You really tell the Court that you want to live with your w ife ?" Witness: “Yes, I do." Counsel: “Well, that being sc, 1 cannot ask for an order You|f WorsJiip.” The Magistrate: “No. There is no need for me to comment on this case. The informations are dismissed. The last little act in Court was when the husband went to sit on the same form as that, on which the complainant happened to be and she promptly moved away to the far side of the room.