A HUSBAND-BEATER

Southland Times, Issue 19895, 14 June 1926, Page 8

A HUSBAND-BEATER

IRATE YOUNG WIFE CHARGED WITH ASSAULT. PROTECTION FOR WELLINGTON PUBLICAN. (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, June 13. The unwelcome attention by his wife forced James Godfrey Frobisher, licensee of the Albion Hotel, to seek the protection of the Court when Florence Irene Frobisher answered to three charges of assaulting her husband and of refusing to leave the hotel when requested. Another information set out that Frobisher had cause to fear and did fear that his wife would do him bodily harm, wherefore he prayed that she be ordered to find sureties of the peace. Evidence was given by Frobisher of the existence of a deed of separation entered into between himself and his wife by which he was to have the custody of the children and give Mrs Frobisher an allowance. It was also provided that neither party should molest the other and that his wife should not visit the Albion Hotel. In spite of the fact that the deed had been signed only on May 27, his wife had already been to the hotel several times. Last Thursday, between 5 and 6 o’clock she visited the Albion Hotel and was slightly under the influence of liquor. She walked into the office where he was making out some cheques and in abusive terms said she would “fix him.” Witness told her to stop using the language and not to make a scene and to leave the hotel. She became worse and struck him with her fist and then threw the telephone at him injuring his eye. The PoliceSergeant was called from the Taranaki St. station but she abused him and said she did not care for the police, the Magistrate or anybody, and that she would do what she liked. The sergeant threatened to remove her and she then left. That hour was a busy time and such conduct between husband and wife would not be likely to improve the conduct of the hotel. Witness had already been warned that this conduct would have to stop or his license might be cancelled. The deed of separation was only sixteen days old and already his wife had made three “scenes” at the hotel. Corroborative evidence of the assault was given by George Charles Hicks, shopkeeper, of Courtenay Place, who was doing business with Frobisher on Thursday. Witness said that when Mrs Frobisher came into the office and told Frobisher he was the man she was looking for, she gave him a smack on the face. Witness said: “You must not do that. Moderate your language.” Witness said he would go and come back later, but Frobisher suggested that he had better stay. Mrs Frobisher threw an ink-well at her husband, but witness caught it and then Mrs Frobisher struck her husband with the telephone. “She was not satisfied with that, and so she threw the whole lot at him,” said Hicks. “Mr Scott and everybody knows now that Mr Frobisher has his face decorated.” On behalf of the accused, Mr Jackson explained that the proceedings had been commenced in the Supreme Court between the parties and as a result the deed had been signed. “Allegations of persistent cruelty have been made against this girl,” said counsel. “I call her a girl. She is only 24 and has not been married four years. Mrs Frobisher had made allegations against Frobisher of cruelty and Frobisher,” said counsel, “had done what he could to humiliate his wife. Mrs Frobisher was unable to have the custody of the child because her husband would not allow her sufficient maintenance. Whenever she had been to the hotel it had been for the purpose of seeing the child and it seemed to counsel that whenever she had done that she was charged with assault and refusing to leave the premises. When she received the summonses she was naturally indignant and she thought she was justified in asking him what he meant by it. Mrs Frobisher said that on Thursday she went to the hotel to inquire about the baby as Mr Frobisher refused to tell her where it was. He denied that she had been abusive to him. He grabbed the telephone and they both held on to it. She denied that she hit him with it, ‘because I had only half a yard of cord and a cat could not be swung in the room.’ ” The Magistrate (Mr E. Page) said he proposed to convict her. It was clear that she had committed a serious assault. He also proposed to convict her for refusing to leave the premises. She would be ordered to come up for sentence when called on within two years. “If you enter licensed premises,” he warned Mrs Frobisher, “I shall direct the police to bring you here for sentence and on that evidence you will probably be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. It seems that you have flouted the agreement and flouted the Supreme Court.” The other informations were adjourned sine die. YOU CAN RELY ON FLUENZOL A leading Wellington chemist writes, “As a fever specific, the principal constituent of Kluenzol is largely used by medical men in their practices.”—(Advt.)