AN ECCENTRIC HUSBAND.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16523, 6 September 1921, Page 8

AN ECCENTRIC HUSBAND.

MANIA FOR CLEANLINESS. HEALTH OF WIFE AFFECTED. The eccentric habits of a husband who had a mania for cleanliness, were i discussed at the Magistrate’s Court j to-day before Mr S. E. M’Carthy, ! S.M., arising out of an application by | Mabel Adelaide Robottom (Mr C. S. 1 Thomas)' for a maintenance order from her husband Clarence Ashton Robottom (Mr R. A. Cuthbert). The cause came prominently before the public a fortnight ago, when an application by the complainant for separation and maintenance orders on the grounds of persistent cruelty and failure to maintain, was dismissed by Mr E. D. Mosley, S-M. The new application was laid under sub-clause 7 of Section 17 of the Destitute Persons Act, 1910, which stated:—** Where the husband and wife are living apart from one another, and the wife has, in the opinion of the Magistrate, reasonable cause for refusing or failing to live with her husband, the husband shall not be deemed to have provided her with adequate maintenance merely by reason af the fact that he is willing and ready to support her if and so long as she lives with him.” Mr Thomas said that a few weeks previously the complainant had applied for separation and maintenance orders against the defendant on the grounds of persistent cruelty and failure to maintain. As it was absolutely impossible for the two parties to live together. tho wife was now asking for a maintenance order under the provisions of the Destitute Persons Act. Regarding the allegations of cruelty, Mr Thomas said that although these might not 'have appealed to Mr Moslev as constituting cruelty, he (counsel) proposed to call evidence to show the effect which defendant’s peculiar habits had had on his wife. The first was his hand-washing and persistent cleanliness. Defendant took nearly an hour and a half to dress himself in the mornings, and considered he could riot clean hi? hands unless he kept them immersed in water for five minutes. This might not appear to he crueltv, but on a nervous woman it could be a form of exquisite cruelty. Air Cuthbert objected to Mr Thomas presenting the case in the exaggerated manner in which it was presented to Mi* Mosley who at once saw it was exaggerated and dismissed the complaint. Mr M’Caithy: I’m a Magistrate with thirty years' experience, and I am able to decide cases on their merits, whatever amount of exaggeration counsel might use. Mr Thomas said that the. defendant would use a handkerchief only once, and a towel, which was of course bigger than a handkerchief, he used twice. Another thing was that the man taught his children to utterly disregard their mother. On one occasion the little boy struck his mother. He had a'so taught the child to lie. From November, 1919, to November, 1920, the defendant emulated the habit of the famous man in England who never spoke wife. He ignored her and treated her like a slave, worse than any servant could be treated- He had also accused the woman of insanity, and was actually by his manner driving her insane. At one time when Mrs Robottom went to Wellington she broke down in health, and the doctor recommended her to have six months rest. Since she had been living away from the man she had improved re- . markably in health. After she came back from Wellington, the children were looked after by Mr and Mr* Stewart Robinson, but the husband went along and demanded the return of the children, stating that he waft the one to be considered. Counsel also quoted instances of the defendant using bad language to his wife. During a neriod of nine months, the defendant had been put on to four jobs, but in each case he did not get the job account of his eccentric- habits. The complainant, Mahel Adelaide Robottoim, said she was married in 1910 and there had been two children of the marriage—a boy 9 years of ag> and a girl 7 year's. For some time her life with defendant had been 4 un happy. On one occasion when she took lunch to him he refused to eat it because the spoon had fallen upon ihe ground. Ver T frequently he insisted on cutting all the crust off the bread because she had handled it. When fli© morning paper arrived, the outside had to he burned. Tlie little hoy had tio discipline whatever, and had threat ened her with the poker. For nearly 12 months her husband treated her with oofi tempt, stating that she was only a servant. He had told her she was mad and that he would have her examined. When she returned from Wellington, the doctor told her she was to have six months 5 rest, and not to have the children at home. She was not to get up until half-past ten o’clock m the morning* Her husband, however, brought the children home again and she was unable to have the rest. Another instance of his eccentric conduct was his habit of putting paper on the handle grips of his bicycle in order not to soil his hands. She was satisfied that it was quite impossible for them to get on together as they were two opposites by nature. To Mr Cuthbert : She would not say that he used bad language frequently. She did not think any of the habit* attributed to him were exaggerations. Dr James F. Duncan said he attended Mrs Robottom oil several occasions. She was a highly strung woman and her trouble was purely nervous. He advised her to take a rest in the country. After she left her home she showed a very marked improvement, j She had got to a high state of hysteria and if she again lived with her husband she would return to that condition. To Mi Cu thbert: If the conditions were as her husband suggested she would have been improved bv a short holiday, but if they were as she said, it would be a mistake for her to go back to her husband’s homeEvidence in support of complainant’s statements was given by several relatives. Mr Cuthbert, for the defendant, submitted that the proceedings were in tho nature of an ingenious appeal from the decision of Mr Mosley, a fortnight previously. He contended chat tlie Court had heard the facts and pronounced judgment upon them, but now the complainant was basing her case ozi another section of the Act asking, not for a separation order, but merely for a maintenance order. Counsel submitted that there was no reasonable cause for the two parties to live apart, and there were no facts brought forward that suggested anything more than ineomnatability of temperament. The husband had not been guilty of any crueltv of blow or word, and ail that plaintiff could bring forward were certain suggestions that lie had eccentric habits which i made it impossible for her to live with him. Speaking generally the married life of the parties had been affectionate and friendly. The defendant, Clarence Ashton Robottom, gave evidence that there had been no serious disagreements in his married life until a month or six weeks ago, and the disagreements

which had taken place since then had been due to the interference of his wife’s relations. Defendant referred to several acts of kindness and consideration he had shown towards his wife. To Mr Thomas : lie denied the truth of most of fcho statements mad© by the witnesses. The Magistrate said the defendant was not a vicious man, but he was certainly an eccentric man. There was no doubt that his eccentric conduct had affected the health of his wife, causing it to break down on two occasions. When she was removed from her husband she had always got better. His Worship , said he could leave out ail of the evidence except one particular portion, and that was the statement made by the wife that her little boy had been taught to disobey her. There was nothing more lowering to a mother than for any of her children to be taught to disobey her. “ 1 think her health has been affected by living with the defendant owing to his eccentric conduct, and if she Is compelled to go back again her health is bound to suffer. I think this Is a. case for maint ©nance. s J Mr Thomas: We have the little girl with us. Mr Cuthbert stated that there was no application for maintenance of the child. The Magistrate: The child can foe the subject of a separate application. , Tho defendant will Ix 3 ordered to pay x 25s a week maintenance in respect of ,s his wife ‘and also ordered to pay costs..