A MIXED MARRIAGE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume V, Issue 1339, 29 May 1918, Page 9 (Supplement)

A MIXED MARRIAGE.

RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES. LEAD TO DIVORCE ACTION. Before his Honour Mr Justice Herdman, at the Supreme Court this morning, John Thomas Birch (Mr G. W. Smithsou.) applied for a dissolution of his marriage with Christina Birch (Mr R. Twyneham), on the ground of was a counter petition by the wife on the same ground. Mr Smithson said that the petitioner alleged that the respondent deserted him in 1908.

The petitioner, in the witness-box, said that he was married in April, 1906. He had been the licensee of the Waltham Hotel at Christchurch. He had not been on very good terms with his wife. The trouble was a religious one, lie being a Protestant and his wife a Roman Catholic. On that account he gave up his business, took his wife to Dunedin, and then went to Melbourne in March, 1907. There he looked around for a business While he was away a child was born. Later on he settled down in South Melbourne, and sent £2O to his wife. She came across to him, and after they had lived together a short while, the old trouble recommenced. She abused him on the score 5, of religion, and called him opprobrious names. She finally left him in October, 1908, simply packing up her things and going away, and taking the child with her. She also .took some of his jewellery. He went down to the boat to see" her, and asked her why she him. He had a good home. She/ replied that she had no time for him, and was sorry she had ever married him. She returned to Australia about a year later, saying that she had heard that he was in a good wanted some more money. They did not live together again, however, as he was absolutely "broke." Hfe had been in a picture show business, and it had been a failure. He was brokenhearted with all his bad luck. He had been to the war, and served there for three years, and his memory was not very-good for dates. His wife took proceedings against him in Melbourne to secure maintenance for the child, and the Magistrate made an order. He did not invite his wife to live with him again. He did not have the choice, as he was absolutely "broke." When his wife took proceedings against him she said she wanted to "show him up." Later he returned to Christchurch, but could not get work £ or a long time. Eventually he got a job. as biograph operator for a travelling picture show. Ho was with the company some time, and left them because they owed him a lot of money. He then worked in a bond store in Auckland for two and a-half years. After that he was working in connection with.. the Auckland Exhibition. That was in 1913. Later he worked as a tally clerk on the Auckland wharves. He then enlisted in the Second Reinforcement, and returned to New Zealand on Christmas Day last in very bad health. He had served with the Mounted Forces. He was discharged. At the request of his Honour, the petitioner produced his discharge from the Forces. : ' . '.

When he enlisted, the petitioner went on, he made an allotment in favour of his mother. He had never heard from his wife, and did not know where she was. While he was at the war he learned that his wife had. returned to New Zealand and claimed his allotment money. He placed the matter in the hands of General Chaytor. He received one letter from his wife after he left Gallipoli. His Honour: Have you got that letter?

Witness: No. It is pretty hard to drag things around there. The day he arrived back in New Zealand his wife was there waiting. She attempted to speak to him, but he took no notice of Iter, and she used violent language towards him He had not cohabited with his wife since she left him in Australia.

Cross-examined by Mr Twyneham, the petitioner said that he was not bigoted, but his wife was. He was married in St. Saviour's Church, Sydenham. He was in Sydney when the child was born. To his Honour: He went to Sydney in the first instance for the sake of his health. He quarrelled with his wife over the christening of the child. He found out that she had had the child secretly baptised in the Koman Catholic Church. Mr Twyneham: Seeretlv?

Witness: "Yes. Secretby, so far as I was concerned." He was an averagetempered man. He had a revolver, but he never threatened to shoot his wife. They also quarrelled over money matters, as she wasted the money. It was not true that he had purchased the ticket for his wife to return to New Zealand. It was not true that he had helped to pack up the things to enable her to go back. Whatever he may have said in the Lower Court, when the maintenance case was being heard, he had not intended to say that his wife had asked him in Australia to make another home. He had riot told her at that time in Australia to go to hell—he was not in the habit of swearing at women. After his wife left him in Melbourne he made no attempt to find her, and took her answer as final. When he enlisted there was a mistake, inasmuch as he was entered as a single man, and he had tried to get that rectified at Trentham. When he saw his wife on the day of his return to New Zealand he did not know her, as it was seven years since he had seen her. The reason he had not spoken to the child on that day was because he knew how shrewd the mother was. Emma Birch said that when her son was in Australia she received £'2o from him for the purpose of sending his wife to Australia. When he went to the war the wife said to her that it was "a d good job he was gone —he might get killed." His Honour: You don't strike me as being very inquisitive. You did not ask her why she said that? Witness: No. I never interfere. His Honour: It's not like a woman, is it? (Laughter.) In reply to Mr Twyneham, the witness saiil that when her son was in Auckland she received a letter from _his wife inquiring r.-s to his whereabouts. Witness replied, saying that he was in Auckland, but did not give her the address. THE COUNTER-PETITION. Mr Twyneham said that the evidence for the respondent would show a sharp contrast to that already given. It would be shown that there was trouble right from the beginning, lint the reason was that the husband had never taken 'any notice of the wife or the child. He was extremely annoyed that the child was christened in the Roman Catholic iChurch, and had said that he would have nothing more to do with her until fthe chihl was re-christened in a Protesftant church. Mrs Birch had done her Ibest to keep in touch with her husband, and, as had been shown, had gone to

Australia to live with him. When he returned from the front she did what was natural, and went to meet him. He brushed past her, and she ran after him ml implored him to speak to Iris, their child. He said that he would do so when the divorce proceedings were over. The respondent, a prepossessinglooking young woman, gave evidence. She said that in Melbourne the respondent used to "hammer' her. He had no time for her, "and used to hit her across the face. When she asked for money for clothes and boots, he told her that her place was at home. He took no notice of the child, and remained out till 3 or 4 in the morning. The fact that the child was christened in the Catholic Church was a source of great trouble, and he said that he would not speak to it until it was rechristened in the English Church. Her husband sent her back from Australia to New Zealand, telling her to go back to the rest of the Irish said that, he would not live with her. To his Honour: Tt was untrue that she had ever said that it was a ■ —— good job that her husband had gone to the front. She had received only one letter from her husband since she had separated from him in Australia. When she returned to her husband in Australia she did so on the advice of her father. He asked her what she had come, back to him for. She replied that she had come for him to make a home for her. He replied that the only condition on which he would live with her was that he should get her a position in a bar, arid he tfO"l'-l get a room and .the people of the house would look after the child. She objected to living in that wav.

His Honour: Do you suggest that he asked you to wffrk while lie lived in idleness? —Yes, sir. In reply to a further question from his Honour, witness said that she supported herself and little girl in Melbourne for six years after that. She secured a maintenance order against her husband for the support of the little girl. Witness said that she got the money to come back to New Zealand from her husband. When she reached here she learned from his mother that he hail enlisted. In reply to his Honour, witness said that she told Mrs Birch, sen., about her husband having struck her. The mother replied that in that respect he was just like his father. She had written to her husband while he was at the war, and asked him when he returned to New Zealand to make a home for her. The little girl Iris had also written, but no reply was received to either letter. She had made application for her husband's allotment, and secured it. When he came back to New Zetland she met him and spoke to him, but he said "I don't want to have anything mofe to do with you." She said "Speak to Iris," and he said "I'll speak to her when I've finished with you.'' To Mr Smithson: She was not bigoted; had she been bigoted she would not have married him in the English Church. To his Honour: She emphatically denied that she had ever used towards her husband the language attributed to her. It was true, however, that he used filthy (language towards her. I His Honour remarked that the whole I point in the case was whether the husband had sent the wife away or whether she had left him voluntarily. Mr Smithson agreed. Margaret Keenan, mother of the previous witness, said that at one time she 'stayed at the Waltham Hotel with her | daughter and son-in-law. She had heard them quarrelling. This concluded the evidence. Mr Smithson said that he did not wish to address the Court. Mr Twyneham said that it was clear that the husband had persistently neglected his wife and child while the wife had made many efforts to resume relations with her husband. At this stage his Honour remarked that he need not trouble Mr Twyneham any furl her. >» His Honour s:>id that he had quire made up his mind to dismiss the petition. It was impossible for him to toll whet tier the husband or the wife was [tolling the truth. His Honour then reviewed the evidence. Tt was impossible i for him to make any decree in face of hhe conflicting evidence. The respondent would be entitled to costs. I Costs to the amount of £lO were allowicd against the male petitioner, witnesses' expenses and disbursements to be I settled by the registrar.