NO COLLAR AT DINNER.

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1371, 24 March 1923, Page 3

NO COLLAR AT DINNER.

" ENTICING" A WIFE AWAY. A remarkable ease in w hid) a Keighley (England) man alleged that his mother-in-law enticed his wife away from him and persuaded her to go back to South Africa was opened before Air Justice Darling (states the London Daily Mail).

The husband was Mr Charles Sanderson, a cashier; the mother-in-law was Mrs Hannah Hudson, a widow, of Port Elizabeth. South Africa.

Sergeant Sullivan, K.C., for Mr Sanderson. said that the claim was for the alleged enticing away of Mrs Sanderson. and for harbouring her against the will of her husband. The wife is no party to the proceedings. The defence, apart from a denial of the statement of claim, set out grounds for the wife leaving her husband. Mr Sanderson, said Sergeant Sullivan. married his wife, who came from South Africa, at a Wesleyan chapel in Morecambe in October, 1029.

In July, 1921. Mrs Hudson and Mrs Sanderson’s sister arrived from South Africa on a holiday. Subsequently the husband noticed a change in the attitude of his wife.

One day, counsel proceeded, when plaintiff was in the kitchen, his wife summoned him into the dining-room. He found his mother-in-law there, his wife, and her sister. His wife stated that she was ceasing to be hm wife except in name and in the eyes of the law. When he demanded the reason he was told that: He did not accompany the wife beyond the chapel door when she went to church. He smoked in the dining-room without. the mother’s permission. He had not been respectful in his attitude toward her mother. He frequently got up when he had finished dinner without asking the mother’s permission.

He had on two occasions sat down at meals without a collar on. “ Mothers-in-law are proverbially sensitive as to the social requirement* of sons-in-law sitting down to dinner without buttoning their collars,” said Sergeant Sullivan, amid laughter. Mr Justice Darling: Within limits, that is quite right. Counsel: I have seen the greatest financiers in America sitting down to dinner without collars on and with open shirt fronts on hot days. That was in a community where such things are excused better than they are at Keighley. (Laughter.)

Mr Justice Darling: Do the financiers of Keighley generally wear collars. (Laughter.) Defendant and her daughters, said counsel, left plaintiff’s house next morning before six o’clock. Mr Charles Sanderson, the plaintiff, said that when his mother-in-law complained that he did not wear a collar at dinner it was in the hot summed of 1921. “ I said I could not wear a collar,” he added. “ They were dressed in blouses open half way down front and back, and I had to wear a collar. (Laughter.) I continued to appear without a collar.” (Laughter.) The hearing was adjourned, and by the time the case was resumed the English mail had left.