UNHAPPY COUPLE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12407, 27 August 1918, Page 6

UNHAPPY COUPLE.

JUDICIAL SEPARATION ACTION. AFTER THIRTY-TWO YEARS’ MARRIED LIFE. At the Supreme Court this morning, before his .Honor Mr Justice Herd man, Sarah Davison (Mr Dougall) petitioned for an order of judicial separation Ai° m husband, James Davisou (Mr -Alpcrs), on the grounds of persistent cruelty. In outlining the case for plaintiff, Mr Dougall stated that petitioner waij fiftythree, years of ago and respondent) sixtythree'. The marriage was celebrated at the home of petitioner’s father, at Claremont, near Timaru, in 1886. There -wore several children by the marriage. The parties were in comparatively poor circumstances at that time, but as the children grow up and were able to assist on the farm, matters improved financially, and in 1916 respondent sold his property and came to Christchurch, purchasing a property at Papanui called “ Dcvonia.” It was, during 1906 that trouble first comfor a trip to England, 'taking the eldest daughter (Ethel) with him. After his return respondent began a persistent course of cruelty. No actual physical violence was used, but respondent treated his wife as a bond slave ami a- prisoner. Specific dates of instances of cruelty were mentioned, and counsel stated that_ the case was founded on an action Kelly v. Kelly, which was a recognised case, and judgment on judicial separation. Petitioner’s case was much the same .as; the Kelly action, and petitioner prayed , that judicial separation bo granted her, with custody of the children.

Sarah Davison,' petitioner, gave evidence as to her marriage in 1886, and described the domestic life, relations and rise of the trouble that led to the present action. There were, petitioner stated, seven children. All were alive except a son, George, mho was killed in action in France last September. After respondent’s return from his trip to England in 1908,. his manner became most unreasonable, and he acted tyrannically. Petitioner told her husband that she would rither die than continue the unhappy daily life, and he replied: "You can’t die too d—- soon for me.” The children wanted witness to leave home, but she did'not go. Witness did her best in attempts at reconciliation, but they all failed. Her husband became very indifferent to her prior to tlm birth of her youngest child. As the children grew, the father’s quarrelsome nature caused, endless trouble from day to day, and life in the home became intolerable. Petitioner, continuing her evidence, gave details as to numerous quarrels, which not only affected her health, butresulted in the’ elder children leaving home. Petitioner > was left £2OOO under her mother’s ' will. Defendant demanded half of the amount, and her refusal to ,agree to his request caused great trouble. She became tend fled, and, at last, not. being able to stand it any longer, left the house. Witness mentioned that on one occasion she had procured a bottle of laudanum for treatment for a bad headache. Subsequently she had found the bottle wrapped in a note (produced), the handwriting on which was her husband's. Her husband stated in the note that he earnestly hoped she would take the contents. During the last twelve years respondent had never spoken a kind word to her. Decree or no decree, she could not go back to live with her husband. (Proceeding.)