WIFE SEEKS DIVORCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 August 1921, Page 8

WIFE SEEKS DIVORCE.

QUARREL AFTER HONEYMOON. AN UNSUCCESSFUL PETITION. EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT.

A quarrel six days after marriage, which subsequently resulted in a wife’s petition for divorce, was related in a ease heard in the Supreme C.urt, New Plymouth, yesterday, by Mr. Justice Salmond.

The evidence was to the effect that the parties had a disagreement on the morning they returned from their honeymoon, and thereafter relations as husband and wife ceased.

The petitioner was Sadie A. Crombie, of Tariki, and she sought a dissolution of her marriage with Arthur B. Crombie (Wellington) on the grounds of desertion.

Mr. R. 11. Quilliam apepared in sup port of the application. Petitioner said she married respondent on March 27, 1918, and there was one child of the marriage. After the ceremony they lived in Wellington. She had a dispute with her husband on the day they returned from the honeymoon trip. The quarrel started over soma telegrams and letters of congratulation which were sent to her in her maiden name. Her husband thereupon refused to live with her, and they occupied separate rooms. She went back to her oc-

uiipation at the Defence Office, and her husband, who was on leave from his occupation as a lighthouse keeper at The Brothers 'lighthouse, returned there about a week afterwards. During this week she made efforts at reconciliation, but her husband said the marriage was a mistake. He informed her when he was going back to work that he intended to get a job ashore, and would be back in six weeks, but she did not see him for five months. Occasional letters passed between them.

HUSBAND COMES BACK. Mrs. Crombie said she made representations to have her husband transferred to a shore job, but he then wrote stating he did not want to come ashore. When he came back the first intimation of his arrival that she had was when he walked into the room. She told him that she was waiting for him to find a home, and he suggested t hat she should go to her parents in Havelock (Marlborough) in the meantime. He returned the next day, and she invited him to spend the evening at the board-ing-house,. but he said he had some friends to see. When she was en route to Picton she met her husband on the same boat. During this period she asked him for money, but he said he would see about it. She was to remain in Havelock till he got a home arranged at Wellington and sent for her. They were on friendly terms at this time. She stayed at Havelock from September to December, and she wrote to him again, urging that he should get a home for her. He was boarding in Wellington, having got the shore job: she suggested boarding with him, but he said it was too dear. He came to see her at her parents’ home on Christmas Day. They were on fairly’ good terms, hut her husband was always a moody man.

His Honor: How long did yon know your husband before you married him? —Eighteen months. Continuing: On leaving after Christmas, respondent kissed her good-bye, and said he hoped She would bo all right. At this period she went into a maternity hospital, and after the birth of their child her husband saw her twice. She asked him then to leave hei some money. to which lie replied that he did not nave any. He said he had lost all his money', and was ruined, but did not give any further explanation. After witness left the nursing home she went io her husband’s mother, who paid the hospital fees for her. When the baby was six weeks old she returned to Wellington; her husband did not meet her, but she stayed at the same hoard-ing-house, and met him when he came home from work. She asked if he had done anything to get a home, and he replied that he had not, and did not want to bo worried, as he was ill. He was taken to the hospital next day with the Tin. When he returned she again mentioned starting a home, and he said

she had better go back io her mother. She replied that she intended to stop till he had fixed up affairs. She remained there three weeks’', but did not occupy the same bedroom, and informed respondent that she would not agree to this till he had secured it home. Witness was getting her board free at that tim<% as she was temporarily managing the boarding-house. NO EVIDENCE OF DESERTION. Early’ in -lune she returned to her jntrents, having received a faithful promise from respondent that, he would secure a home within six weeks. He said he intended to try and get a house, through the repatriation scheme. Nothing • camo of this, and witness’ brothers and sisters had suggested suing respondent for maintenance, but she did not take this course, as she could not afford io.go to Wellington. Subsequently her brother paid her faro to k Wellington, and she again •stopped at t' i ;‘ same boarding-house an respondent, f/itness asked him about the home and iponey matters, but this only resulted in violent quarrels. They e&ntinued to occupy separate rooms. In addition to working himself up into a ra «e. her husband I threatened to take his a»d also threatened her. Shfe had come to the conclusion that he was hardlv eajre by tha way be acted. She went back to Havjelock, but returned to Wellington J.n September, 1919, to urge her husband tP provide for her, or else she would to go to work, as she was penniless’. She got no satisfaction on this visft, and went back to Havelock. She tpok a position on a farm up Rye) Valley, where she remained for ln the meantie she got nojWJtey f, -om her husband. She left/ber pesiiJpn in March, nv.,l IqFpt pflme?to Taranaki, where she Sd been woSg in order to keep herself. / Resnondent toW ber that he had paid away 1/ oi bis money on a debt of honoi’ 1 biy bad refused to toll her what this was, slle Q uan ' ellecl w ‘th him over it, &s/ s}lo thought the money should been spent on herself aud child. ? To HisA ouor: ™ IC q uarre l after the honeymo<4 ‘ was ab out her receiving telegrams addressed in her maiden name* e^ ve no other rea--50“I caX possibly grant a divorce on Diat I / e 210 evidence of desertion/’ said

Counsel contended there was technical desertion, as there . had been an absolute lack of maintenance. His Honor: I think the desertion is' the other way round. These letters from the husband are. full of appeal U tlie wife to return to him. The petition was dismissed.