MARITAL STRIFE.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17587, 17 December 1928, Page 4

MARITAL STRIFE.

INDIFFERENT HUSBAND. COMPLAINT FOR MAINTENANCE. PROVISION MADE FOR WIPE. A distressing story of how a young couple failed to'make a success ot the first few months of married life was told in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court this morning hefore Mr Wyvern Wilson S.M., when Marjory Gillard proceeded against Morion David Gillard, of Frankton, for separation, maintenance and guardianship orders. Mr A. L. Tompkins, for plaintiff, said the parties met 12 months before |,hey married in April, 1928. Gillard married the girl under protest, and ever since had adopted an attitude of protest. He was unemployed for some time and later lived with his wife at her parents' house at Gordonton. Gillard told his wife his marriage would make no difference and he intended having a good time. He told her she need not expect that he would take her out. It was Gillard's custom to visit Hamilton without informing his wife where he was going. Once he stayed away a week-end, Dressed Up For Dances. "When they lived at Ngongotaha," proceeded counsel, "Gillard frequently went out with his collar and tie on—unusual attire for Ngongotaha. Once or twice he went out without a collar and tie, but later she found he had taken these articles of clothing with him to dances. A quarrel occurred between Mr Lindsey, the wife's father, and Gillard over an account. On this occasion Gillard became very abusive and threatened to throw a jug of milk at Lindsey." Counsel added that Gillard rang through to his wife's home last week and stated that he was staying with an aunt at Frankton and was about to obtain work.

Bad Language Alleged. In the witness-box plaintiff gave evidence that her husband became very abusive before and after the baby was bora in Septemher. He often came home at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning with no explanations and sometimes used bad language. Continuing, plaintiff said her husband left her for a fortnight in November to go to Rotorua. When he returned he asked her to live with his parents, but she refused. Gillard had paid her no maintenance since she left Ngongotaha.

Replying to Mr A. J. McMullin, for defendant, witness said she refused to live with Gillard at Frankton. She knew her husband and her father entored into a share-milking contract at Rotorua. She denied that her husband returned after a day at Rotorua and asked her to return with him. While she was in a nursing home she admitted her husband was very attentive to her. She wished to be separated from her husband. She denied that she was being influenced in the matter by her parents.

The Father's Evidence

Joseph Lindsey, sharemilker, Ngongotaha, detailed the circumstances of his business relationship with Gillard and gave particulars of the husband's conduct towards his daughter. Owing to Gillard's action in failing to keep the share-milking agreement with him he did not see how Gillard should claim any portion of the milk cheque. He had never advised his daughter one way or another. Mr McMullin said from the evidence there was no lack of provision on the husband's part. It was true there had been differences between the parties, but evidence of wilful negligence or failure to maintain was necessary. Not Wilfully Negligent. His Worship said there was no evidence of wilful failure but it seemed as though defendant failed to provide without reasonable cause. There was no case for separation or guardianship. Counsel said defendant had made every effort to get work, although he preferred to go on a farm. Defendant gave his version of the quarrel over a grocer's account in which he alleged Lindsey called him a liar and told him to get to out of it. He wanted Ins wife to return to him. In reply to His Worship defendant said he would not write his wife because he was afraid the letter would be opened by his mother-in-law. His Worship: What is your story? Defendant: I have nothing to say. His Worship: Well, your wife's story is not very creditable to you. The magistrate said defendant did not seem to be bona fide and he did not act like an honest husband. He would not make a separation order, as there was a possibility of the parties coming together again for the sake of the child. An order of £2 a week for the maintenance of the wife was made.

Defendant was ordered to pay costs, £2 2s.