WIFE SEEKS SEPARATION

Taranaki Daily News, 13 October 1928, Page 7

WIFE SEEKS SEPARATION

OPUNAKE CASE CONTINUED A SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT.. THE WIFE RETAINS CUSTODY. Finality was reached yesterday at a special sitting of the Opunake Court in the case, which was commenced at the August sitting, in which Edith Tippens f proceeded against her husband, William Henry Welham Tippens, a farmer of Oaonui, asking for orders of separation, maintenance and guardianship in respect of two children aged 7 years and 17 months respectively, on the grounds of failure to maintain, persistent cruelty and habitual incbriacy. The court was crowded, attesting to the lively public interest taken in the case, but after plaintiff had been submitted to further cross-examination the case was adjourned and an agreement arrived at. Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., presided, Mr. P. O’Dea appearing for plaintiff and Mr. C. H. Croker for defendant. Mr. Croker first cross-examined plaintiff regarding incidents alleged to have taken place last Saturday when, in accordance with the arrangement made at the last hearing, defendant went to visit the children. Witness denied that she had then started trouble by referring to him being with another woman. He started the altercation, because Billy, the 8-vear-old boy, was not ready. Witness replied that she was sorry the boy was not at home, but said defendant would be able to see him that afternoon. Defendant had arrived in a quarrelsome mood. She had not said she had proof of defendant’s improper relations wita a young girl. Mr. Croker continued his cross-exam-ination and, in reply to a query from the bench as to its object, said that defendant had been assaulted by plaintiff on that day and had had to send for the police. 'He had to answer the charge of persistent cruelty and he submitted that no proof had been given. The magistrate said that if an endeavour was going to be made to finish the ease he was prepared to sit throughout the next day and finish it; if not he w-ould only take it on each court day, even if it took twelve months. jfr. Croker said he had to meet charges of failure to maintain, drunkenness and persistent cruelty. The two former had been dispersed last court day and he would submit that no assault had been proved, though defendant may perhaps have dealt somewhat roughly with his wife after a good deal of persecution. Mr. O’Dea: Don’t address His Worship at this stage. Mr. Croker said it was highly important to his client that he should clear away by cross-examination allegations that had been made by plaintiff in her evidence. ‘LAUGHTER AT THE IDEA." Replying to cross-examination, witness laughed at the idea that she had sworn at defendant on Saturday, and said he would never get into court. She was not in the habit of using bad language. She did not strike defendant in the face. Mr. Croker: Did not Tippens say, “I’ll show this to Clouston ?” Witness: He insulted me and I went inside to call Constable Clouston when defendant picked his face and said, “I’ll show him what you’ve done to my face.” Counsel further iboss-examined witness regarding her references to her husband being out in the car with the gif’ at 6 o’clock in the morning. Mr. O’Dea said that he had a witness, the girl’s brother, to give evidence on that point. Mr. Croker: That witness was in court all last court day, and I will object to his being called. Continuing his cross-examination, Mr. Croker said that he wanted the point cleared up regarding the inference about the girl and defendant being in the car together at 6 o’clock. Mr. O'Dea protested against the witness being “badgered.” To the magistrate: Witness was told the girl was with defendant when the car went into the drain about midnight. In further cross-examination witness said that on his arrival last Saturday Billy said, “What have you done to your face, dad!” He did not say, “Who het cracked you?” On the first Monday Billy was away playing with other boys when his father arrived, and witness endeavoured to find him. Mr. Croker: Did not your solicitor communicate with you on the subject? I Mr, O’Dea: I merely sent a copy of the letter you had forwarded me. Mi; Croker said he was showing that there had been difficulty in securing access ‘to the children, for which he blamed plaintiff. Witness denied that since the last hearing she had insulted or spoken to her husband in the street. Mr. Croker: I put it to you that at times you are a little difficult to get on with and provocative? Witness: I don’t admit that. THE CHRISTMAS DINNER. Witness denied that Tippens had to intercede owing to her treatment of her father. She always got on well with her father, who, she was sorry to say, was not there to speak for himself. She admitted having had Christmas dinner with her children at the residence of a lady in Oaonui, who she had mentioned in the case, but that was at her husband’s request. She did not believe there had been anything improper between her husband and a Stratford lady, but he was very fond of taking, her put in the car. Reverting to the work of the girl on the farm, Mr. Croker asked was it not a fact that while she was there they, received the best returns ever taken from the farm. Mr. O’Dea objected and a wordy altercation between counsel took place. Mr. Croker said he wanted to clear up allegations regarding defendant carrying on improperly with certain ' women as suggested by counsel for plaintiff in his opening. Mr. O’Dea: Don’t talk to me like that. ,3&>ur remarks are absurd. Mr. Croker: I mean it. The magistrate: I don't want you two gentlemen quarrelling. Mr. Croker said that he would continue his cross-examination until the allegations regarding impropriety were .withdrawn. The magistrate said that the case was drifting to a difference between counsel, whereas he was interested in the differences between the wife and husband. Mr. Croker said that the matter of the alleged impropriety was an import-, ant one as it might affect the whole

of the future life of a man who had apparently been a model father. The magistrate: It would be difficult to prove it a happy home. After further argument Mr. O’Dea said that they did not suggest there had been anything improper in defendant’s relations with the girl in question, but he had been “knocking about” with her.

Mr. Croker: I accept that. It has been admitted that there was nothing improper; that’s all I want. Cross-examined regarding the incident mentioned last court day regarding the alleged assault after the “mending of the pants,” witness denied she had struck her husband with the carving knife or any knife. He had said “ the pants!” and she replied you tool He then struck her across the face and afterwards hit her. Her son Ben was not present, and while as a mother she would believe her son to be a truthful lad, she considered that in this case he was afraid of his father. Witness did not threaten to drown herself, but walked away, and Mr. Tip-pens,-went after her, pushed her down aud dragged her along the ground. Her husband told her to drown herself; she did not threaten to drown herself. Defendant prepared breakfast and plaintiff had it before the altercation. Mr. Choker: It is a fact that on several occasions you: have threatened to icommit suicide? jVitness said she had never done so; nor had she said that she would throw herself over the cliff, but her husband had told her- to do so. She had never drank any lysol years ago. The magistrate: What will we arrive jllllllllllllllHllllllllllllllllllinilllllHHlllllllllllllllllllllllllll

at, even if it is proved that she attempted suicide? Does that not show that an unhappy atmosphere had been set up? Mr. Croker: I am going to prove that some time ago we offered separation and 30s per week, provided wc got the custody of the children. Mr. "O’Dea: What court would take the custody of young children away from the mother? The magistrate said that he always took the attitude that unless strong reason was shown to the contrary young children should be in the custody of their mother. Mr. Croker said that from inquiries he had made it was only fair to say that plaintiff looked after the children well when they were with her. She was a woman of honest intention but was subject to intermittent attacks that at times made her temporarily unfit. The magistrate said both parties had arrived at the opinion that separation was advisable and the question at issue was the custody of the children. On his suggestion the court adjourned to enable counsel to confer with a view to coming to some arrangement. On resuming Mr. O’Dea said it had been agreed to ask for an adjournment until next month. In the meanwhile a deed of separation, maintenance and guardianship would be prepared, plaintiff to receive £2 10s per week maintenance as from October 1 and to have custody of the two younger children. The amount of maintenance was to be reviewed at the end of the milking season. The question of access was left to the magistrate, who fixed it at from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. each Saturday. He stressed the point that the welfare of the children was the first consideration in such cases.