A MAORI’S MATRIMONIAL TROUBLES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 45, 7 October 1911, Page 2

A MAORI’S MATRIMONIAL TROUBLES.

ORDER TO MAINTAIN WIFE AND CHILD SOUGHT.

THE INFORMATION DISMISSED

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday a native named George Wiari appeared on a charge of failing, to provide maintenance for his wife, Agnes Wiari, and his child ap e i three months. Mr Stanford appeared for complainant and Mr Fa okas for defendant.

i Mr Stanford .said ids client was married at the age of sc artcen at Turangarerc, but owing to alleged cruelty on defendant’s part, she left him and returned to her father in the Stratford district. The complainant’s case would rest entirely on her own evidence. A witness' from this district had failed to turn up and evidence which was available at Taihapc could not be procured, as complainant had no means and could no! afford to bring the witnesses to Stratford or to have their evidence f.ilen in Taihapo. y x Complainant, in evidence, said her ago was eighteen. At j resent she was living at Huiroa with friends. In September last she was in Turangarcre with her sister, and boro she

met defendant. After kiio'Hng him about two months she manned him—on November 9th, 1910. i Her marriage they continued to live at Turangarere. On March Ist of this year sir' came to the Straff or i district, having left her husband a few weeks previously, during which time she

stayed with her sister, _ ! cfondant did not see. .her before she left. Her child was horn in June., Her husband had sent her no mpney , since she left him and she bad only had

about a pound from him all the time she w:,is married, to I'i'ii. At present she had no means, and iuul been in receipt pi charitable atci at the time of her confinement. Defendant ibid a home in Tuning irere, but he did not support her propel 1y and would not do so. For the first two months lie supported her, but at the end of that time ho con 1 1 get no more credit. Discord was caused by defendant’s jealousy. He always accused her of running about with other men, of which she was not guilty. One night when she went down to post a letter with her brother-in-law ho struck her. She left him a few weeks afterwards. At. sundry times he threatened to shoot her if he saw her with other men. By Mr Fookos: She had her father’s permission to marry defendant.. Her father was at Hairoa at the time and did not know defendant. She had never given cause for jealousy. The only man she over wont out with was her brother-in-law, and not very often with him unless defendant was present. She could remember a little trouble which occurred ihroe nays after the marriage. Two drunken Maoris came to her house, but they left the house just as she returned fiom her sister’s. It was about seven o’clock, not nine o’clock,, and sire was not in bed at the time. Defendant remonstrated with her for having the Maoris in the House. She did not. know where the Maor's got drink. She knew the Maoris, tut they did not come to the house at her invitation. On the evening of December 17th last a man named Brooks might have been in the house, but ho was never there in the absence of defendant. At times she had taken drink —port wine—but it was very seldom she did so. She certainly was not. at the mill on the night of January sth and did not drink witii Brooks and another man. On one occasion she had struck defendant-, bn-., it was a good time before he nit her. When defendant struck her on the way to the post office he said Unit her proper place was at home and, aOer some argument, he struck her. She did not. provoke him by striking Mm. About three weeks previously she bad struck defendant at the house. r ( lie- cause was that defendant refuse*] tc allow her to take the gig to go to Taihapo to see her sister. She ic.jr timbered

going to Taihape one day, sbibng that she would return the . day, her business being to do some shopping for another woman. It might have hi on on .January 17th. CrooKs was in ihc train in which she ti; veiled. There were no men with, her, Mr I' onhrs: bid you : mr.i on January ! 7th f Wifnces: No. Mr r'ook I '.- : Why lid •on not re- ; urn ? Witness: ! suppose 1 didn’t want i 10. Mr Cookes: How img voro you a wa v ? Witness: Just a day an 1 a night. Mr hooker,: Who did you stay with in Taihapo? Was it Mrs Cooper, who is living away from inr n.-l'aiid? Witness: It was Mrs tnqner’s, but i don’t know that she lives away from her husband. Mr Fookes: Did yon :oo her husband during your stay?

Witness: No

Continuing, /witness said she had spoken to Brooks in I'aihuni and also on the train. She knew defendant did not like her speaking to Brooks, but he objected to her going out oven with her own brothers. Brooks was not at Mrs Cr (pci’s. Mr Fookes: Did you i.rtog home any beer from Taihape?

Witness: Not that I know of

Mr Fookes: You say >om lu.-li.nd once gave you a pound. Why did lie give it to yon? Was it to pay a debt you had contracted let or" marriage and which was being pressed for?

Witness: i don’t know. Mr Fookes: Well, whit did you got it for?

Witness :I suppose i inst wanted

Mr Fookes: Now, wasn’t it to pay tills debt? Witness: Yes.

Mr Fookes; Did not d t odant provide yon with a comfortable home ?

Witness: It was comf utabF, but nothing was paid for. 1

Mr Fookes: Well, you didn’t have to pay for it., Do you know defendant borrowed money when he got married? Witness: No.

Mr Fookes: It seems strange that a man’s wife should not know about his money.

Witness: That was one of He things I complained about.

Mr Fookes: Did you not notice that just after marriage your husband had any amount of money?

Witness: No

Mr Fookes: Is it not a fact that you left your husband as soon as his credit ran out? Witness: No. . ! . i

Mr Fookes: Is it true that for some time defendant also suopo' ted a niece of yours and a brother-in-law r Witness: My brother-in-law was boarding with us.

Mr Fookes; Did ho iay you for his board ?

Witness: He did not pa • me

Mr Fookes: And he did not pay your husband. Where is your brother-in-law now? Witness: At Midhirst.

Mr Fookes: Ho is the wdness you desired to call to prove that your husband was cruel? How d > you account for him not taking the trouble to come along to-day?

Witness: Ho will be ! here but be lives a long way away am. he will not be here until ton late. * Mr Fookes: When you left your husband, were you in. need of clobber? Witness: I had plenty of clothes, but he did not buy them - I had them before I married him.

Mr Fopkcs: What happened when you left defendant? .

Witness:, My husband Kaw :nc packing up, and ho would .know what I was doing,bpcause I had told him two or: three.times that I intended to leave him. I could not stand him khocklfig mo about land cursing l a fid swearing. Mr Fookes: After leaving defendant, j ~ 7 did your write to hint? 1 ’

Witnesß!:ol wrote a note from my sister’s place asking him to give me £2 to pay to a Maori' from whom I had borrowed it.

Mr Fookes: Did you ask for any money for yourself?

Witness; Nog 1 got tired -f asking. J did not tell my husband where I was going nor--have I v. • itten since to him telling him where I was or asking for money. Vhe money borrowed from the Maori ins to pay my fare to Stratford.

Mr Fookes: Did you leave directly?

Witness: No

Air Fookes: You cannot say your husband was cruel when he advanced money to pay your fare. Did yon expect your husband to repay the Maori ? Witness: No. Mr Fookes: Did yon or your husband leave Tnrangarere li? .A ? Witness :My husband left lirst. He sold up his furniture. Mr Fookes: Was it not i.ecanse you would not return to him that he did that? Witness: I don’t think so Mr, Fookes: Did your husband not reply to .the letter askbig for the £2?' Witness: Yes. Mr Fookes: Have you gef. that letter. to ! •

Witness: No. Mr Fookes: Why not? Air Stanford: Why should she? Mr Fookes: It was a kind letter, was it not? Witness : Yes. Air Fookes: Do you n fuse to live with him again ? Witness: Yes.

Defendant, in evidence, said that when ho struck his wife on the road to the Post Office he was merely defending himself. She made a rush at him and ho put up bis hand. It

was two days after his wife left him that she wrote asking for £2. He had replied to that note, but had heard no v more from nor. He left Tnrangarere about a Tack later, for .1 change. , The S.M. (Mr KenricO said defendant should not have . e.-n brought up on warrant. He was continually being asked for warrants in such cases ,but ho was always averse to doing so. Very often a> a result of a warrant being issued the defendant lost his einploym nt, thus making it harder for him to provide maintenance. During eight years on (he bench he had only issued three such warrants and in only one of these cases was lie satisfies that flic warrant was necessary. In the present case the wife had been very reluctant in answering counsel ir crossexamination, taking a long time to answer qnesions which sin.: should have been able to answer at once. Air Fookes: I contend t’mi failure to maintain lias not been proved. The S.M.: That is so. Air Stanford: If your Worship finds that the woman is dojt’fcutc, defendant must be ordered to snuport her. In giving judgment, Mr Kcnrick

said the case was a most in fortunate one. it was a mse .’i wl/cb there should not have been a marriage. Nowadays young people win got married did not seem to be able to give and take, and, further t' an that, they entered the marriel state without any sense of responsibility. It was a shocking state « ? affairs. In the present case divorce proceedings would probably be the end. I lie complainant had acted in a Sgh-handed manner in bringing defendant before the Court in the manner she had. He was not well impressed by the manner in which complain uit had given her evidence. If her story was true she should have been able to give her evidence freely, but as a matter of fact every answer had to I o dragged from hen Nothing had oeen brought out which disclosed that defendant had failed in his duty. D ‘fondant was not aware that a child ha 1 been born, complainant failing to notify him to that effect. Before coming to the Court, complainant should have thoroughly exhausted all other sources of remedy—she should have met defendant and made quite sure that lie would make no offer. Fntii that had been done it was entirely wrong for defendant to be brought to Court, especially on warrant. Finally, of course, defendant would have to maintain his wife and child, but there should first bo a consult ition to see if a settlement could not lie arrived at without on order of the Court Air Stanford: The defendant has made us no offer.

..Mr Fookes: We are the wronged parties and hold that He onus is" on complainant to start negor...lions. The S.M.: The information is dismissed.