WIFE ALLEGES CRUELTY

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1929, Page 6

WIFE ALLEGES CRUELTY

APPLICATION FOR"SEPARATION. MARRIAGE DURING THE WAR, An application for separation, maintenance and guardianship orders by Ellen Godkin against William Godkin, a farmer of Taurakawa, near Stratford, was heard before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Hawera yesterday. The complainant also alleged failure to maintain and persistent cruelty. Decision was reserved. Mr. P. O’Dea appeared for the complainant and Mr. A. K. North for the defendant. The complainant, Ellen Godkin, said she had met her husband in Sterling, Scotland, when he was a member of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. They were married in 1919 and he came out with the troops shortly afterwards, she following two months later. During that period she had had improper relationship with another man, but when she landed in New Zealand she told her husband and he forgave her. They went to the backbloeks of Stratford and had been in the bush for the last ten yeais. Their home was five miles from the nearest neighbour and access was gained by means of a mud road. . The house was merely an iron shell in the first place, and had an earth floor. Later a whare was built, tout she and her husband lived in one tent and the two children of the marriage in another. Occasionally she visited Stratfoid ana usually stayed from two to three days. It took a day to get there and a day to go home again. Sometimes there were visitors at the house but they were usually men. Her husband had not been very companionable, but both had done their best for each other and the children. Bv the aid of the correspondence system she had educated the children.

HOLIDAY AT MT. EG MONT. At the beginning of the year the family together with the husband’s niece, Dulcie Archer, had taken a holiday at Mt. Egmont, where the son had become ill.' Complainant returned with him to Stratford, where he entered a private hospital. During the boy’s illness she and the niece had stayed at a boardinghouse in Stratford. Her husband returned home and when she next saw him he asked her, “Did you, while you were at the boarding-house, sleep with a' man boarder?” She told him that she did not. Subsequently defendant took the children away to New Plymouth. She remained at the boarding-house in Stratford until told to go. She went to New Plymouth, saw defendant and asked for the children. Some time after- ■ wards she returned to Taurakawa and found defendant, the two children and his two brothers there. The children wanted to stay with her but the husband struggled with her, took the children away and walked them five miles down a mud road. He then took them to New Plymouth. The brothers packed up his goods and carted them away, leaving her there. She stayed there three days and then went to her neighbours. Her ibrother-in-law came out and took her to Stratford, from where she went to Wanganui. The following week she went back io the home and found defendant there with a party of pighunters. The children were there also and in a very dirty condition. The next day the whom party rcturned, the defendant taking the children with him, and witness going to I Wano-anui. She would be pleased and | was anxious to go back to her husband and children. 'He had told other pcopleof her past troubles. When he accused her of sleeping with a man he comd not name the man. Several times he had accused her of “carrying on’ with stockmen who had driven her out to Stratford and to neighbours. Since coming to New Zealand she had never done anything that she was ashamed of. Her husband had admitted to her that he had “carried on” with women before his marriage. VISITS TO THE HOSPITAL.

To Mr. North: After the “business”! in .Stratford defendant had told her he I would maintain her, but would not let , her have custody of the children. He | was a very fond father. She supposed ■ she was fond of men. When her son j was in the hospital she noticed a man i in the men’s ward. jShe visited him ; and he had asked her to ring his wife, i She was also asked to go to his pocket : and take out enough money to pay for I the ’phone call. She had once visited j the Opunake races with the man, but ! his wife knew. She had no inteiest in the money that was to come Jo the children under their grandfather’s will. When she was staying at the hoardinghouse in Stratford she had occasionally gone into men’s rooms to assist in making the beds. Harriet Bowie, Wanganui, said she had known Godkin and his wife for about six years. She had seen Mrs. Godkin and her children and considered her a perfect mother. When she visited the farm with Mrs. Godkin the children, then in the care of Mr. Godkin, were in a very unkempt state. The defendant had told her that his wife had made trouble in many, homes and that she had been “carrying cn” with a man. When he visited"her place in Wanganui for the children he called his wife a prostitute and said that if she continued to harbour her, she too, would soon be in the same-category. She did not think he was normal for he was dripping at the mouth. When at the bush Godkin had told her that if his wife was successful in obtaining custody of the children, he would take them into the bush and destroy them. Robert Bowie, husband of the previous witness, said defendant had accused his wife of being unfaithful to him. He told witness that if he continued to keep complainant ..in his house his wife would be classed the same as .complainant. Witness had resented these remarks and told defendant that “we ail lived under the British flag, which adjudged every- ' body innocent until they were proved guilty.” Ho asked defendant to leave the matter to the court of justice to decide. ... William Mills, a Stratford jeweller, said he had been a boarder at the hotel when complainant was there. On one occasion ha had noticed her come put

of-’a. mail, boarder’s room at eleven; o’clock at night, and. he. had left the. hotel because of her conduct with other boarders. Dr. Doris Gordon gave evidence of attending the small son of Mrs. Godkin while he was in the 'hospital. Mrs. Godkin had visited the child, but seemed to be more often in the men’s ward than in the children’s ward. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT. The defendant, William Godkin, would not admit to Mr. O’Dea that the children were dirty. He knew the Bowies well and considered Mrs. Bowie a respectable woman. It was not true that he had told Mrs. Bowie that he would destroy the children, nor did he go to the Bowies’ home foaming at the mouth. He did not tell the Bowies that Mrs. Godkin was a prostitute, but had told them that he did not want the little girl to be reared in the same niannei as that of the wife. He had accused her of misbehaving with other men. Speaking generally, his wife had looked after the children fairly well. He was not exactly a vegetarian —they had meat about once a month. He had accused his wife of sleeping with a man. He had never told her that if the niece got into trouble he would destroy her. To the magistrate: Originally he offered to pay his wife £2 a week maintenance, but he now thought that uas rather much. He realised that he must always have a woman to look after the children. Mrs. Amelia Reichart said she had heard Mrs. Godkin remark, when her child was ill, that she would not mind if the child ibecame worse so that she could go to town. Dulcie Archer, aged 16, & niece ot Godkin, said she had been living with the Godkin family for about foiir or five months. In April she had visited Stratford with the family when the little boy went into the hospital. When Godkin and the little girl returned home ■witness and Mrs. Godkin had stayed at a hotel. One night she missed Mrs. Godkin and found her in a mans bedroom. The next night she was in another man’s room. She was sitting on an unmade bed. ■ Mr. O’Dea: You’re the one who told the tales ? Mr. O’Dea: Whom did you tell?

Witness: My uncle. To Mr. O’Dea. she said her uncle had said she could stay in Stratford with her auntie. Uncle had told her to “keep her eye on auntie.” He had tokUher she was free with the men. When she returned home from Stratford her uncle told her he could see there was something on her mind, and inquired if it had anything to do with her aunt. Whilst at the boarding-house her auntie had reproved her for speaking to a man. “As a matrimonial experiment it seems to have been doomed from the start,” said the magistrate. He thought that to compel the couple to live together would be the height of folly.

SEQUEL TO AN ASSAULT. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES HEARD. When he was assaulted by Frank/ Williamson, a Hawera blacksmith, on the evening of April 15, Edward Wright, a carrier, sustained injuries which incapacitated him for nine weeks. Before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., at Hawera yesterday Wright claimed damages amounting to £67 18s Gd, made up as follows: Lost of earnings (nine weeks at £6), £54; doctor’s feee, £4 4s; X-ray, £1 ss; massage, £1 2s 6d; legal expenses in connection with sureties of the peace, £7 7s. The magistrate said plaintiff was entitled to judgment for £6O Ils 6<l and costs £6 13s, but he could not allow the legal expensea incurred in connection with finding sureties of the peace. The plaintiff, Edward Wright (Mr. P. O’Dea) said he was attacked by Frank Wilkinson and, as a result of injuries received, was incapacitated for nine weeks.

To Mr. A. K. North, who appeared for defendant, he said he would admit that his wife and family had been against him for four years and his domestic relations were not very happy. He had never put his hand on them or i “put the boot in.” When his children | were old enough he had told them to j go out and find work. i Air. North: When we were dealing i with maintenance matters for you, you i always maintained that your earnings | were about £3 a week. Now you are i claiming £6 a week. Plaintiff: I was probably earning that amount at the time. It might have been a lean period. Counsel for the defendant contended that had "plaintiff been reasonable in the assessment of damages the case would probably not have been before the court. He submitted that the defendant had not gone to the house to : cause trouble, but that the plaintiff, in ■ his . usual truculent and objectionable manner, which he had always adopted : towards his family, was the cause of ; the fight. I In evidence Grace Elizabeth Wright ! said she was a daughter of plaintiff and j i on the night in question had not been i |at home. Her father she always re- | ! membered as a violent tempered man. , | "When she had first taken defendant to ! ‘ the house her father’s attitude towards , i him had been friendly. _ _ • i The defendant, Frank Wilkinson, a ; blacksmith of Hawera, said he was 19 i years of age and on the night in question had been civen a parcel and a letter by Miss Wright to take to her home. He did not deliver the parcel that night, but on the following went to the front gate and whist.ea. Had he gone in lie knew plaintiff "'oukl have objected. He believed that "Us. Wright or some of the family would have answered his whistle. Instead ot that plaintiff came put and toM to “Get to out of it.” "Witness refused to go, saying _ that he had a perfect right to remain on the fobpath. Plaintiff then returned to the garden and came back with a shoie handle with which he struck witness in the stomach and then on the heac. Witness pulled the weapon away and attempted to give him a slight blow on the thigh. Plaintiff’s arm had got in the way and tlie hit had broken it. He did not kick him in the face or use ns boots on him at all. , , “The evidence shows that defendant was warned by plaintiff not to go to big house,” said the magistrate. Nevertheless he hung around the house peisistentlv. The story of the shovel handle ami the one blow breaking tne plaintiff’s arm I cannot believe. The only item in the claim to which there is any doubt is in respect to legal expenses. I could not allow those.