CAN'T GET ON.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 218, 19 October 1914, Page 11

CAN'T GET ON.

HOUSEHOLD TROUBLES. Mary Baker (Mr 13. T. Harper) claimed £8 6/8 from Chas. Geo. Baker (Mr Johnston), balance of maintenance due under a deed dated October 26, 1910. Defendant confessed judgment, and counter-claimed against the plaintiff for the sum of £8 6/8, damages for breach of contract, on the part of the plaintiff to provide the defendant with food and permit him to be at liberty to reside in and partake of the benefits of the plaintiff's establishment at St. Asaph Street, ChristchUrchi . Mr Johnston explained that in June, 1909 the parties separated, Geo. Chas. Baker to pay Mary Baker £4 a month and pay school fees for his daughter to the end of the year, and permit Mrs j Baker to have the use of a small projperty and effects in certain premises in St. Asaph Street.. In October, 1910, a deed of reconciliation was drawn up, by which Mrs Baker was to get £2O 16/8 a month, £4OO worth of furniture, and the freehold of the property in St. Asaph Street. '' That seems to have been a very clever action on the part of a very clever woman," said Mr Johnston; "and two months afterwards she broke an umbrella over his head in Gloucester Street." In October, 1913, tliey made another reconciliation in the true sense of the word. Baker was first put to sleep in the dining-room, but in. November lie was permitted to sleep in his own room until a lady friend came to see his wife, and he was again transferred to the 'dining-room. His gross income amounted to £514 10/-, but after meeting all expenses he had only £sl 10/9 to live on, exclusive of keeping his properties in repair. In February he went to Auckland, and came back and was putin the dining-room. Later his wife told him that he could return to his own room, but he refused and left the house j to take up lodgings. j Chas. Geo. Baker, retired hotelkeeper, in evidence, stated that as far as he could recollect he gave his wife £4OO worth of furniture and £4OO for equity. Witness said he left his. wife because she kept nagging at him, and because she broke an umbrella over his head in Gloucester Street. In November, 1913, they came together again, but he was forced to sleep in the dining-room. Witness went to the Auckland Exhibition, and when he came back in February last lie was again consigned to the dining-room. His wife later asked liim to go back to his own room, but he said it was no good, and she ordered him out of the house. After that time he had only £sl 10/9 a year left after paying his wife's demands, and he couldn't keep the houses and himself on that. He had thought £l2 10/- a month was a fair amount to pay her. Cross-examined by Mr Harper his relations with other women, Baker admitted that he" had heard of a warrant being out for maintenance against him of a child by a woman in Sydney. His reason for going to Australia was because he could not get an hotel license here. After hearing further cross-examina-tion Mr Bishop remarked that not in one case in a hundred of this kind was there any possibility of a peaceable reconciliation. It is not only an impossible position, but an immoral position, and altogether undesirable. The wife was aware of it, and to a certain extent seemed to accept it. "I know the position to a certain extent," he concluded, "because I was instrumental in refusing him a license.'' The case was adjourned by the court for a fortnight.