DARBY AND JOAN

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14766, 4 October 1921, Page 6

DARBY AND JOAN

AGED COUPLE'S DIFFERENCES. "I'LL MAKE YOU KEEP ME." OWEN CASE REVIVED. The marital differences of an aged couple—the husband 71 and the wife 60 —both of whom have grown up families, were again before the Hamilton Court yesterday, when Margaret Owen further proceeded against her "husband, Zenas Owen, under the Destitute Persons' Act, for maintenance. In April last the original proceedings were heard before Mr H. A. Young, when His Worship refused to make an order against the husband as the latter had staled his willingness to take his wife back and make a home for her, His Worship holding that the wife's accusations of habitual drunkenness against Owen were not substantiated. Complaintant was now willing to go back to her husband, but he refused to have her back. The case was reviewed by Mr W. H. Platts. S.M., to-day, when Mr E. H. Northcroft, for the wife, said she was now perfectly willing to live with her husband, but he had taken no steps to provide a home for her, and as her position was becoming desperate she had again brought her case to Court. Applicant met her husband at Frankton on June 23, and arranged a conference with him to discuss their future, but this appointment he failed to keep. Later on she met him again, and he remarked that there would lie ho home. 'Cross-examined by Mr Stewart, for the husband, applicant said she was now prepared, despite what happened at the former hearing, to go back to her husband, as her health was now improved as a result of' the period she had been away from him. Mr Stewart: Have you now taken back all the false statements you mad" against your husband in the original proceedings? I didn't know I made any false statements.

Mr Stewart: And did not your husband right up to the time of the proceedings, and actually during lite proceedings, offer to lake you back?—Yes. but I considered, owing to my state of health and his habits, that \vc would be tetter apart. MY Stewart: And had you been successful in obtaining maintenance would you then have been content to live with your husband?—-Possibly not. Complainant admitted that she received £7O from the proceeds of certain of the furniture. The furniture, she considered, belonged to her, as she put £l3O into the borne. She did not, remember stating to him (Air Stewart) that she would not return to her husband if she had to take back the furniture. She was not particularly anxious to live with Owen, but she thought he should provide maintenance for her, although tie had said he would rather go to gaol than do so. Respondent: So I would; I would rather go to gaol than provide maintenance. Mr Stewart said the husband had done everything in his power to induce h'is wife to resume cohabitation. Complainant's sole object was to get rid of her husband, and it was she who really performed the act of desertion, although she wanted him to keep her. Respondent said his wife had adopted the defiant attitude of "I'll make you keep me." 'When, after the last Court proceedings, he went into an anteroom to discuss the matter with tier before Mr Xortheroft, his wife simply rose to her feet and turned her back on him. On another occasion when he called on her she simply spoke to him Ibrouprh the narrowly opened door, although there was nobody else in' the ■house. She had distinctly riescrted' him, and unless the Court ordered him to, he would not live with her asain unless she brought back the value of the furniture she had sold.

Replying to Mr Northcroft, respondent said that before the home was broken up he and his wife frequentlyhad words, but he did not remember her, on one occasion, calling him "old monkey face."

His Worship reserved judgment