“THROWING MUD.”

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 6 February 1923, Page 7

“THROWING MUD.”

LIVELY INTERLUDE IN COURT. (Per Press Association—Copyright.) WELLINGTON, February 5. Howard Nattrass, motor dealer, was proceeded against by his wife in the Magistrate’s Court in separation, maintenance and guardianship orders Counsel for plaintiff said the parties had been living apart. The separation bad been arranged in 1919, following on a case in which Nattrass was the defendant in an action for seduction, and £2O per month maintenance was paid for some time; but this ceased early in 1921. In April, 1922, fresh deeds were arranged, whereby the plaintiff was to receive certain benefits from a patent which defendant went to America to exploit. The payments were made till November, and then ceased. Defendan t returned to New Zealand at the New Year, and plaintiff commenced proceedings to recover maintenance. Last Friday the syndicate with which the defendant was connected paid up the maintenance due under the deed, after being threatened with legal proceedings. Counsel said that defendant had a large number of valuable shares in the patent, yet the maintenance had been reduced from £2O to £lO monthly. Defendant, in evidence, said he had always been willing to maintain his wife. He explained his financial position and denied that he was keeping the young woman who was concerned in the former proceedings. Mr Watson (counsel for plaintiff) asked: “Where is she?” “She is living with my sister,” was the reply. “You were deported from America, weren’t you?” ‘ ‘That’s a lie! I might make you prove what you say.” “Were you not arrested and sent over the other side?” was the next question. “It’s a lie!” “You were once convicted in this Court as a rogue and a vagabond, weren’t you?” continued Mr Watson. “That’s another lie,” replied defendant. “You have got your knife into me, and you are only throwing mud.” “Don’t talk to me like that,” said counsel. “I say you were convicted in this Court for being a rogue and a vagabond.” “And I say that is a lie,” retorted defendant. Further similar cross-examination followed, and the Magistrate interjected : ‘ ‘This man is quite capable of earning his living, and it is his duty to look after his wife and child before he looks after any other lady. I order that he pays £3 per week for the wife and £1 for the child.” There was a further discussion on the question of security, and decision on this point was held over for one month, defendant in the meantime to make an advance payment of £l6. [Nattrass was connected with an abduction case in 1920, the outcome of which was that two doctors were suspended for long terms from the roll of medical practitioners.]