DOMESTIC AMENITIES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 873, 27 November 1916, Page 10

DOMESTIC AMENITIES.

THE HOBEN CASE. HEARING CONTINUED. The hearing of the case in which Chrissie Hoben applied for orders for maintenance and separation against her husband. Ernest Dennis Hoben, on the grounds of alleged persistent cruelty, was continued at the Magistrate's Court to-day, hefore Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M. Mr Thomas appeared for the applicant, while Mr Hunter represented the defendant. PLAINTIFF'S FURTHER EVIDENCE. Cross-examination of the plaintiff by Mr Hunter was resumed. The witness stated she was married on June 1, 1!)1(), and was sent lo work bv her husband two weeks later. 'Mr Hunter: Was it not until August that you went to work? The witness replied she went south at the end of August. It was not a combined trip of business and pleasure. She was engaged in canvassing on the trip. Mr Hunter: Did you not write a , letter. Mr Thomas to the Magistrate: I object to the putting in of these letters. Your Worship has ruled that they are not admissible. Mr Hunter: The only letter I wish to refer to is one written by her proving she was not forced to go lo work, but went of her own volition. Mr Thomas: At that time her husband was practically bankrupt, and Mrs Hoben had to canvass for advertisements to save her husband. The Magistrate admitted the letter mentioned. Under further cross-examination, the witness added that after her operation, and at the beginning of the year, and after the Timaru trip, she went to Akaroa for three days with a Miss McCalhmi. She then paid her own board and also that of Miss McCallum. Hoben did not then oppose this, but refused to pay. The bathroom assault episode occurred some lime in May. It was about 8 a.m. in the morning. No one came into the bathroom while her husband and she were there. She did not call out. Shiela and Moyna Hoben might have been in the house. When she rang up Father HanraAan one evening because of an assault committed by her husband, she did not then say Hoben was murdering her. She said her husband had an attack of mental trouble. When the priest arrived, her husband had gone to bed. The priest spoke with her husband then for about an hour and a half. Father Hanrahan then saw witness and said, "1 am very sorry Mrs Hoben. Mr Hoben has admitted that he would give you worse later on, but I don't think he will." The witness said her salary was £3 a week. She also owned a house (which was mortgaged) on the Hills, and 100 fully paid up picture company shares of £1 each. The money had been saved in Palmerston North 'rom wages and outside work done. The doctor's account had not yet been Said. She had no other means. She ad no feeling of jealousy towards Hoben's first wife. She had never made derogatory statements outside about the late Mrs Hoben. She would not care if Hoben had three wives. It was wrong lo say she had an antipathy to Hoben's children. She had never spoken outside about them in derogatory terms. It was also incorrect to say she bad told

people that Hoben's children were not lit for other children to associate with. Mr Hunter, to witness: Did you have an altercation with a man named Renaud at the theatre? Mr Bailey: I can't allow that evidence. Mr Hunter: It shows the woman's temeprament. That was my reason for asking the question. Re-examined by Mr Thomas: Letters quoted and credited to her were written in reply to letters sent by Hoben. The letter in which she mentioned that an evil spirit possessed her had been written in reply to a suggestion to that effect by Hoben. She had paid Hoben's accounts hefore leaving him, and in consequence was loaded with her own debts. She helped to raise money to send one of Hoben's children to England to be treated by a specialist, and she had often paid for their clollies. The witness to Mr Hunter: In a previous information she did not ask for a separation, but only applied for maintenance. Mr Thomas said that this closed iiis case, but if necessary he would call evidence in rebuttal. DENIAL OF CRUELTY. Mr Hunter said the defence would be a denial of any cruelty. Mrs Hoben was of an hysterical nature, and had repeatedly addressed Hoben's children in opprobrious terms. She frequently had to be restrained during these outbursts by Hoben, who, without roughness, would place her in her room and lock her in. As lo the bathroom incident, that had been witnessed bv Moyna Hoben, who would tell a different story to that told by Mrs Hoben. In regard to the tramcar incident, counsel stated that he would prove that previously Mrs Hoben had violently attacked Moyna (Hoben's daughter) and Hoben had merely put his hand over Mrs Hoben's mouth to prevent her making use of an expression. Although the tramcar incident wr ; perhaps technically an assault, it did not in any way support the charge of persistent cruelty. The charge was an abominable one. It would, if established, affect tiie standing of the defendant in his profession. THE DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE. Ernest Denis Hoben, the defendant, said that after his marriage Mrs Hoben did no work for him until the end of August. At that time his office was fully staffed and he did not require her. In August, she left for a trip to visit her sisters in the South Island, and he consented, on her proposal, that she should also do canvassing while away. His wife did not commence work in his oflice until live months after her marriage. He did not tell his wife after her illness that she must go to work and earn pounds. That was a favourite expression of his wife's. He tried to persuade her to remain at the Hydro, Timaru, and they were the guests of the proprietors. Mrs Hoben only stayed afterwards at Akaroa for about three days, paying Moyna's expenses. He repeatedly requested her not to go back to work, but Mrs Hoben was insistent, as her duties simply were the attending of social functions. IN THE BATHROOM. As to the bathroom incident, Mrs Hoben had just been calling Ihe children , and questioning their paternity. He followed her into the bathroom and she there sat down and said she was taint. Moyna just (hen came in. He had never struck his wife, but had held her by the wrists to restrain her. He had never

done this roughly. Shiela, one of his children, was assisting at the cookery exhibit at the Industrial Exhibition. Mrs Hoben objected to the witness talking to his daughter there. Mrs Hoben, Shiela, and the witness were returning home together, and Mrs Hoben ran away from them when the car stopped. On arrival Mrs Hoben abused the child in coarse terms saying she had used all the gas in the meter. He took Mrs Hoben into her room and told her that she would have to stop her line of conduct. He then went to bed. Father Hanrahan then arrived —witness did not know he had been 'phoned for —and asked witness if he had struck his wife. This he denied. The witness had been in the habit of seeing the Father every Sunday evening. A SON ATTACKED. Mrs Hoben had made many gross c.llacks on his son, attacks which were doing the son great harm. On a Sunday his son complained of her behaviour, saying that she had called him a mongrel and insulted his mother. Mrs Hoben said the boy was a liar. On this occasion witness shook his wife and took her lo her room. He told her they would have to separate. As the result of a communication she made to him he explained everything lo his son, and sent him away to a hospital. Mrs Hoben made the offeV to send witness to Sydney as stated, but she had never contributed anything towards sending his son to England. The , son worked his passage both ways, and the doctor's fe.es were paid by witness from the proceeds of a life insurance policy which fell due. ANTAGONISM TO CHILDREN. On June 28, after the Kaikoura trip, he wenl to town in the tram car on which Mrs Hoben and Moyna travelled. On arrival he received a ring from his wife, saying, "I have taken that Moyna to have her neck disinfected. You know it is dirty, you could see it on the tram] car." That evening Mrs Hoben was particularly abusive to Moyna. He ihen took Mrs Hoben for a walk, accompanied by his dog. On coming back, Mrs Hoben said, "That Moyna has not washed the dishes properly." Mr 'inomas: I must object to all this detail. It does not concern the charges. His Worship: ft does seem to overlap. The Witness: I'm giving the evidence now. I've had a life time of this and Mr Thomas a few hours. Mr Thomas has been particularly insulting to me, After some argument the witness j proceeded and said Mrs Hoben con- j tinned to abuse Moyna, making use i of approbrious expressions. She then attacked him and tried to ring j up on the 'phone. He prevented her and went to bed. Later, she came in and pulled the bed clothes off, mak- j ing a particularly foul attack on the children's mother. He got sick of this and i oiled h ; s wife up in the i bed clothe ;. On the following morning Mrs Hoben again used abusive; terms about the children, and wit-j ness put her outside the door. Mrs Hoben was in a paroxysm, striking! him with a slick, saying, "You —»-ij You wife beater!" He told her! she would have lo go, but she fore- j ed the back door open. He put her outside for the second time and she] struck him with a stick. He look it from her, but she retaliated with dirt I and gravel. He threatened her with a basin of water, and she left to I catch a tram. THE TRAM CAR INCIDENT. ' Later, he left for the same purpose and met Moyna at the stop. The

child was crying, saying she was frightened to board the car. Mrs Hoben had boarded it higher up. Moyna got into the car with a girl, Olive. The latter led the way into a seat opposite Mrs Hoben, and fearing there would be trouble, witness also jumped in. Mrs Hoben leaned over towards Moyna, and appeared to make use of expressions she had previously been using against the child. He had prior to this threatened his wife that if she made attacks against his daughter in public, he would prevent her. The witness added that when Mrs Hoben appeared to make the remark decribed lie walked up the aisle, put his hand over her month and said, "I'll leach you to call my child a ." lie did not strike Ins wife. He then asked Miss Duff if his wife had said the words mentioned and she replied, "No." Just then, Mrs Hoben bit witness on the thumb and he forced her head hack, the blood from his linger spreading over her face. He was perfectly calm and collected, lie may have been red with running after the car. Later, he talked to Mr Dan Reese about other subjects, showing he was not excited. Previously, in Pahnerston North, Mrs Hoben had stoned Moyna in the streets, and her health, in consequence of Mrs Hoben's conduct, had become seriously affected. He subsequently received a letter from Mr Alpcrs, the solicitor, on behalf of Mrs Hoben, complaining of the tram-car assault. Witness called on him, and produced his damaged linger. On returning home on the evening of the tramcar incident, he found the house gutted. Mrs llobcn had cleared out the bulk of the furniture. He consented through Raymond and I Stringer to vacation of the house, 'and to take away his personal effects. Mrs Hoben removed some of these. BURNING LETTERS. He found his wife burning letters signed by a man named "Dennis" of Auckland, the dates of which coincided with attacks made on him by Mrs Hoben. Mrs Hoben had previously said they referred to a mere flirtation. In consequence of these

letters he told her he would refuse to consent to any reconciliation. The witness described the negotiations made between solicitors for the two parties in regard to settling the matter. He desired that the Magistrate should fix the terms in his private room. The witness proceeded to explain that he had kept Mrs Hoben's letters because of a consultation she had with Dr Mackin. Dr Mackin wrote witness about Mrs Hoben saying Mr Thomas: I object to the witness pulling in the doctor's certificate, hecause 1 have been barred from producing similar evidence. Mr Alpers (from the body of the court): A gross breach of faith on the part of the doctor. The Witness: is Mr Alpers appearing in this case? Is he in the witness box? After a protest by Mr Thomas, the Magistrate decided to admit the evidence. The witness staled that after a consultation with Mrs Hoben, he was assured she suffered from hallucinations. The doctor warned the witness to keep all letters from Mrs Hoben, as some day witness might have to "light for his life," and they would be evidence as to his wife's condition. The witness handed in a statement about his means to the Magistrate. Mr Thomas objected to an item, "War bonds," but the witness explained thai he was paying a weekly sum towards the amount paid for these by his employers. His earnings were £8 a week, out of which he had to support his mother and live children. He paid £4 12/- a week for the board of his mother, himself, and two children. In addition, he paid £1 3/- a week towards a life policy and loans thereon. One son bad to have continual massage. He paid 10/- a week towards war bonds and 1/(5 a week towards the Belgium Fund. He would have to take a house later, as several children were at present with relatives. He would then have to maintain seven people, including himself. He owed about £75, would have to pay his costs of the present action, while Mr Thomas was endeavouring to make him pay £35, the amount of Mrs Hoben's drapery accounts. There were also amounts due to guarantors in connection with several unfortunate business speculations made by him. The witness described the headache incident. Afterwards he acted as chancellor at the Queen Crowning Ceremony, and few people would have noticed anything unusual about him then. Mi- Hunter said that Father Ilanrahan had been communicated with by the defendant and asked to give evidence, but the rev. father had .said that his giving evidence would be inconsistent with his priestly duties, which were confidential. The defendant continuing his evidence, said that the rev. father had told him over the 'phone that certain particulars given by Mrs Hoben in evidence were incorrect, and he would, if desired, give a written statement to the Magistrate. The witness then produced a letter written by Mrs Hoben in which she attacked his late wife. Mr Thomas objected to letters being put in evidence. Mr Hunter: There is no statute of limitations to a falsehood, and Mrs Hoben had said she never attacked the defendant's first wife. The defendant added that certain mementoes contained in a box, regarding his first wife, had been destroyed by the plaintiff. Mrs Hoben informed him that a dinner eaten by him had been prepared by a fire induced by these mementoes.

THE DEFENDANT CROSSEXAMINED. Under cross-examination by Mr Thomas, the defendant said that half of his marriage had been a happy one. During the reconciliation between May 8 and June 28, their re- | lalions had been particularly happy, j He was then at Kaikoura and letters had passed between thcin daily. He had never "spanked" his wife in Palmerston or told anyone that he had hit or "spanked" his wife in Palmerston North. Mr Thomas: Did you inform Mrs Hoben's solicitor in a previous case that you had spanked her? The Witness: If the solicitor says so, it is untitle. Mr Thomas: Did you not in Mr Day's (the magistrate's) room The Witness: What, spank my wife there? Mr Thomas: No. Mr Alpers said there thai you had told him you spanked your wife. The Witness: i don't remember this. Mr Alpers there threatened me with letters which did not materialise, in the same manner as you have talked about producing letters and have not done so. He denied destroying Mrs Hoben's letters. He had them in court with him. Mr Thomas: What is the date of the prior court proceeding? The Witness: I'll look up my file. The defendant here began to turn up numerous letters and hand them to the Magistrate. Mr Thomas: 1 object to the witness slipping in letters in this way. The Willies: You asked for them and have fallen in. Mr Thomas: Your Worship, I did not ask for them. Mr Thomas (to the witness): What is Hie date of the court proceedings? The Witness: When I went to Mr Thomas: I don't want that, I want the dale. The Witness: You'll get what I give you. Several verbal exchanges occurred between Mr Thomas and the witness, at the conclusion of which Mr Thorn-

as applied to the magistrate for protection against the defendant. Mr Thomas: Have you ever said in public, "I'll humiliate my wife!" The Witness: I have in a letter. Mr Thomas: Answer my question. The Witness: No. Mrs Hoben in a letter I have in my hand says, "You'll never get rid of me, and it will be hell for you . . . Remember 1 am a woman of my word. No power on earth will prevent me from settling it publicly." Mr Thomas: That has nothing to do with my question. Mrs Hoben says so. The Witness: Airs Hoben very rarely speaks the truth. Mr Thomas: Esmc Lamb says you said so. The Witness: The other witness denied it. Mr Thomas: They did not. They said they did not hear if. Mr Thomas: In the bathroom did you use physical force? The Defendant: I only held her hands. I was not rough with her. Mr Thomas: Did she struggle? The Defendant: She always does. A form of dementia with these neople is that they are ill-treated. They imagine things. That is Mrs Hoben's obsession. Mr Thomas: Possibly those remarks apply to you. The Witness: They apply all right to Mrs Hoben. Mr Thomas: And vice versa Mrs Hoben. (Proceeding).