MR AND MRS ROBOTTOM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16747, 31 May 1922, Page 9

MR AND MRS ROBOTTOM.

THEIR DOMESTIC DIFFERENCES. BEFORE THE COURT AGAIN. A matrimonial dispute that attracted some, attention when it came before Mr vS. E. M’Carthy, S.M.« last year was before his Honor Mr Justice Adams m the Supreme Court in banco to-day. The parties are Clarence Ashton Robottom. and Mabel Adelaide Robot torn. Mr Robottom. a hairdresser, refused to cat food or use serviettes handled by Mrs Robottom. suggesting that she was uncleanly in her habits. She took action against him iu the Magistrate’s Court, alleging that he had failed to maintain her. and she asked for a maintenance order. Tho Magistrate ordered him to pay £1 5s a week. It was held by the Magistrate that Mrs Robot tom was not uncleanly ; that Mr Robottom had an abnormal obsession that all persons except himself were uncleanly ; that he never used physical violence to her: that he was sober and industrious; that she was a highlystrung, nervous woman, and, its the result of his treatment, she was suffering from hysteria and had become a nervous wreck ; that if she returned to cohabitation with him she might lose her reason : that be ordered her to leave the house, and she did so, and refused to return to him ; and that from August to September 0 last, when the case was heard, he liad failed to maintain her. Mr M’Carthy, on those grounds, made the maintenance order under the Destitute Persons Act. Air TV. J. Hunter, for Mr Robottom, in the Supreme Court to-day. appealed against tho Magistrate’s decision. on the ground that it was erroneous in law. Air C. S. Thomas, for Airs Robottom. opposed the appeal. Mr Hunter said that there was no evidence to justify the order. There was no evidence of legal cruelty, and Mrs Robottom consequently was not justified in leaving Air Robottom and living apart from him. He had had no intention to be cruel to her. They certainly were not suited to each other their temperaments were very differentr unfortunately—hub that was no reason why he should lie branded as a man who failed to discharge his marital duties. Mr Thomas said that the only question was'whether or not there wasi any evidence on which the Magistrate could have based his decision. He submitted that there was. Air H unter also appealed against Mr .M’Carthy s decision in convicting Robottom of attempting to leave New Zealand with intention to make default of payments under the maintenance order. Air Hunter said that it was true that Mr Robottom had sold/his house and had gone from Ashburton to Napier, but it was wrong to assume that lie was on his way to Sydney. As a matter of fact, ho went, to Napier to consult his family solicitor. Air Doolan. Ilis Honor: It seems a long way to go to consult a solicitor Air Hunter said that the selling < f the house could be regarded at most as only preparation to leave New Zealand. not an attempt, to. leave. Pro paration did not constitute an attempt It was necessary to prove mens rea and there was no evidence to show’ that Robottom had a guilty intention when hr- sold his house. The penalty for tho offence* was two years 1 imprisonment; it was a very serious matter. Air Thomas said that, as in the previous appeal, it was a question whether or not there was any evidence to support the Magistrate’s decision. His Honor reserved judgment »n both appeals.