TROUBLES OF THE TAPPS.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 May 1919, Page 6

TROUBLES OF THE TAPPS.

DOiypS IN- THE DOMESTj® ggK&E.

®ie tearing of the appeal Martha A. Tapp v. Jesse Tapp, which occupied the Supreme Court on Saturday, was continued .yesterday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Hosking. Mr. P. O'Dea represented appellant and Mr. A. H. Powell appeared for respondent.

< Continuing his story, in contradiction oMiis wife's account of matters, respondent said he had made his Alton farm over to his boys for the purpose of freeing him to go to'the front. He also affirmed that he paid all the household bills, and his wife had credit at the stores. He denied having put out a fire in the bedroom by pouring a kettle of water over it, but admitted that there, had been an accident in the dining room, in which he had upset a kettle of water over the floor. He mopped up the mess, and his wife, with an oath, expressed a wish that it had gone all over the floor, as she would have then got the whole room cleaned.

In reply to a question from the Bench, he alleged that his wife was fond of' using such language as he had repeated. He affirmed that at the time she finally left him he was on the best of terms with his wife. About two nights before she left he said to her, while in bed, "Mum, isn't it grand that we have had no words for so long." The judge: "You ought to touch wood when you say that sort of thing." Continuing, the respondent said that, in regard to the general treatment of the children, there was always a supplejack beside him on the table, and his wife urged him to use it on them if necessary, "But I'm not a thrashing man," said Tapp, "and have never thrashed my children in my life." He adraitter he had some fears that she might be contemplating' going away at that time, as the place—even liie bedclothes—was getting very dirty, and that had been the case prior to each occasion on which she bad gone away. He stated that after «he had gone he turned to and washed up eighteen sheets, two counterpanes, all the boys' shirts, and was at it up till 11 o'clock at night. He felt very ashamed to be hanging out the things on the lines the next morning while the neighbors were driving to the i factory. She never had a washing day while she was in his house. He Was a man who assisted in the house. He always took her breakfast to her in bed. Her cooking, he alleged, consisted in boiling a little rice—and the kettle. He stated that when she left to go to Hawera he was given to understand it was to get her leg dressed; and he believed she had to get a bottle of medicine "or something." SOME NEW LIGHT. Under cross-examination by Mr. P. O'Dea, some new light was shed on the early history of the troubles of the Tapps. Respondent admitted that at the time he first met the appellant his wife was still alive. She was stated to be on her dying bed. Pressed by counsel, he admitted aiso that his wife had left him, though he had paid 30s per week' towards her maintenance. Proceedings for maintenance had been taken against him, but these were settled out of court. In regard to the treatment of Mrs. Tapp by his children, he said it was due to their jealousy, on account of him m?'

more fuss of her little ones than Ins own, though he did not think she had anyreal reason for complaint. He acknowledged that one of his daughters had confessed to throwing potato peelings at his wife, hut it really was so triflin • a matter that he did not consider it necessary that she should apologise to Mrs. Tapp—in fact, Mrs. Tapp pelted the children more than they did her. There were hits of fi?hts between them, because, he alleged, she wanted to drive them out of the place. His memory failed him completely when asked if he remembered getting legal advice as to his liability to support Mrs. Tapp's children. He did' raise an objection in Hawera to her children going to school in his name.

Regarding the incident of the refusal of his children to give her clothes up to Mrs. Tapp, he stated that they were in the house, "pjjt away in tlie pantry." A things that had bfen left hanging up in the bedroom were burned at the time of the epidemic. MARRIAGE HAPPENINGS. Regarding the happenings at the time of the marriage, he did not remember a party on the wedding night—it might have been a few nights after. The factory hands came over—lt was a tincanning: party—about 60 of them, and they were given tea and cakes. [ On the occasion of his dismissing her, on account of her not getting on too well with the children, she came home | day and "flung herself in my arms—a most unnatural thing for her." Respondent confessed that he received a shoqk, and also felt disgusted. She then went on her kiiees, and- cried to him not to put her out. When Mr. Owen came oh the scene and suggested marriage, respondent said she was "too flirty, like" for hip. It was pointed out that perhaps if die was mistress of the home the elder would , obey her, and he believed they had obeyed her. The eldest one had not;/willingly obeyed, but "Mum drove her away from the place." In the differences between his wife and his children he nearly always took his wife's side. The greatest trouble seemed to be between his youngest boy and her boy, who used to have lots of fights. His boy was two years older than hers. He did not tell the magistrate about his children's behavior to Mrs. Tapp. She did, but he did not contradict it.

Referring to the talk of marriage, he said Mrs. Tapp had first suggested they should he married, at the time he dismissed her.

"You're fond of ladies, aren't you?" queried Mr. O'Dea, to which respondent replied, "I don't know that I'm fond of ladies; I like a good woman." Continuing, he said he thought it was a day or two after lie dismissed her , that he agreed to marry her. "She* , softened my heart; and it happened very sudden-like." He thought she was down on lier knees about five or ten minutes, imploring him not to turn her out. "And you were still obdurate?" asked counsel. WILLING TO HAVE HER BACK. At this stage respondent admitted that if his wife would do away with the home -glte had in Hawera, and let her | jjhildren go' to the public school with ais, he was willing to have her back now. In reference to an incident wherein it had been alleged that he threatened to hit his wife with a saucepan, he explained that he had come in and was going to make a pudding, but there wasn't a clean pot in the place, and he just picked one of them up and knocked it against the mantelpiece. He thought it prtttjr hard that,

to come in and make a pudding, he couldnot fiftd a clean pot to put it in. OTHER EVIDENCE. "Evidence was given by Samuel Turicington as to a loan of £l5O to the Tapps on the security of their furniture, and also as to Tapp making over his bank account to his wife. He also stated that' Tapp paid for the release of the mortgage over Mrs. Tapp's portion of the furniture. Edward Tapp, eldest son of the respondent, gave evidence to the effect that he and his sister left home at Kaupokonui because they were hunted out by Mrs. Tapp. His sister did all the work, while Mrs. Tapp went about like a lady. When he heard his sister being spoken to by Mr*. Tapp he "put a chip in and stuck up for her, and then they were told to "get to hell out of it." Mrs. Tapp wrote and asked him to come back, and they got on all right. He thought the chief trouble was between the younger children. The elder children would stay in the home if Mrs. Tapp went back, providing she didn't "pick a row." He had never seen his father strike Mrs. Tapp, or heard him threaten her.

Mr. Powell here stated that he proposed dispensing with his remaining witnesses.

His Honor said it was very largely a matter of two contradictory statements and perhaps Mr. Powell could tell him' which to believe.

Mr. Powell said he would try, and proceeded to go over the grounds for opposing the appeal. He submitted that Mrs. Tapp had, on at least four occasions, left home for considerable periods, and in the two and a-half years they had been married had been at home only fifteen months. He urged that respondent had not been guilty of persistent cruelty, and he had not failed to maintain her. He pointed out that the obligations of a husband to maintain lm wife ceased if she left him without justifiable reason, citing cases in English law in support of his contention. Mr. O'Dea submitted that the law in England was not that of New Zealand. In England they had no Destitute Persons Act. He also submitted that the frequent and long absences from home on the part of the wife were the best evidence that she found it impossible to live with her husband. "A CONFLICT OP EVIDENCE." The judge said there was a great conflict of evidence, and he did not know which to believe. It was evident that the two families did not get on, as was not infrequently the case in such marriages. His difficulty was that,- if the two parties could not get on and tlie court could not make an order, what was to happen. He felt that the eldest children were largely to blame for the state of affairs. He pointed out, however, that, in regard to the suggestion of cruelty, he did not think it necessarv to prove personal violence to sustain such a charge. Decision was reserved.