ILL-TREATMENT ALLEGED BY WIFE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18406, 7 March 1928, Page 8

ILL-TREATMENT ALLEGED BY WIFE.

SEPARATION ORDER GRANTED BY S.M. The hearing of a case of alleged assault was concluded in the Magistrate’s Court by Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., yesterday, when separation and maintenance orders were granted Margaret Jane Griffiths against her husband, Thomas Henry Griffiths, tea expert, 99, Gloucester Street. Maintenance was fixed at £2 a week, past maintenance at £4, and solicitor’s and witnesses’ expenses at £B, with costs. Mr Tracy appeared for plaintiff and Mr Brown for defendant. Marjory Nelson said that she was a neighbour of Mrs Griffiths. To Mr Tracy, witness said that on one occasion she saw Griffiths drag his wife out of the washhouse by the ear. Mrs Griffiths wrenched herself free and went back to the washhouse. Witness had not heard any screaming. James Crawford, minister of religion, said he saw Mrs Griffiths on December 16. She had a bleeding nose, a black ewe, and was in a pitiable condition. Witness took her to the doctor. He had not seen signs of violence on any other occasions. Communicated with Police. William Edward Behrens said that he was a neighbour of the Griffiths family. To Mr Tracy, witness said Mrs Griffiths came to his place one day about six months ago. She had her hair down and had blood on her face. Witness and his wife took her inside and communicated with the police and a doctor. On another occasion, about ten days ago, he saw Mrs Griffiths. At that time she bore traces of injury. Ethel James Richardson, a. neighbour of the Griffiths, said that she had seen Mrs Griffiths ill-treated on one occasion. Witness looked out of a bedroom window and saw defendant strike his wif§ on the face. She also heard screams.

Mr Brown, for Griffiths, said that there was no evidence to show how the marks of violence were caused. Mr Griffiths said that his wife was of a highly excitable nature and that he had never laid hands on her except in kindness. Mrs Ellen Howarth, sister of Mrs Griffiths, said that on several occasions she had seen evidence of her sister having been knocked about. Witness said that her sister was not hysterical before her marriage. To Mr Brown, witness said that she had never actually seen any trouble between the Griffiths. Belaboured with Saucepan.

Thomas Henry Griffiths, tea expert, unemployed at present, said that up to December 13 he lived with his wife at Mayfield Avenue. He had never struck his wife. She was hysterical and he had to restrain her. One day she hit witness with a saucepan and hit a boy on the nose. She threw herself about, which accounted for the bruises. On the occasion when Mrs Richardson saw them he forced her to sit down and closed the window. She was screaming out and disturbing the neighbours. Later she went to Dunedin. There she got into financial difficulties. Witness was unable to assist her at the time, but offered hef separation. She said that she did not want separation. Later witness sent her some money and she returned home. On arrival at their house she started to make a scene. He had never quarrelled xvith his neighbours. Mr Tracy: How did your wife get blood on her face and bruises on her body? Defendant: She bit her lip and threw herself about. Mr Tracy: Why did you want your wife to stay away? Defendant said that he did not want her at home because he could not control her. In reply to Mr Tracy, the husband said that he had an income from shares in a tea business in Australia. Mr Tracy: So you’ve led this Court to believe that you are looking for work? Witness: No. I will always work. To Mr Lawry, Griffiths said that he had not been able to work for some time owing to ill-health. George Griffiths, a son, said he lived at his parents’ home in Mayfield Avenue. He had been aware of trouble, but had never seen his father strike his mother. She became hysterical and his father tried to restrain her. Witness went away from home, but returned later. This concluded the case, and Mr Lawry then gave his verdict.