“REPENTED IN HASTE.”

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18158, 24 October 1930, Page 8

“REPENTED IN HASTE.”

UNHAPPY MARRIAGE. ' “SHE GRABBED THE WHOLE LOT." HUSBAND ON PENSION. Una Wallis and her husband did not make a success of their matrimonial venture, which they entered upon in June, and, as Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., remarked when they ap- a, peared before him in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court • this morning to ventilate their troubles,.they had not even repented at leisure—they had repented in haste. It was shown that the parties, Edward Wallis and Una Wallis, whose ages are 68 and 34 years respectively, were married in June, and it was not long before domestic differences, arose, which culminated in their separating a short time ago. Defendant owned a house and. furniture, but the house had to be given up and the furniture sold through defendant getting in arrears with his payments on the house. The wife sought an order for maintenance against her elderly husband.

The Wife’s Story. Complainant, who was represented by Mr McMullin, told the Court that after the marriage she had'lined happily with her husband for a short time, but it was not long before his attitude towards her changed. He had threatened to lock her out of the house if she went out at night. 110 had never given her much money—, only'a pound or two when it suited him. When she had to go to Auckland to attend her father’s funeral he would not believe that that was the object of her visit. On her return, after three days, she found the house . empty and no sign of her husband. When he returned he told her that, ha was unable to work any more. Cross-examined by Mr King, coun- ' sel for defendant, witness said she was unaware that defendant had a grandson 22 years of age. .She had known him for two or three years.

Defendant Gives Evldenoe. “She grabbed the whole lot,” said defendant, in evidence when cyaestioned on the financial arrangements between himself and his wife. “She got the lion’s share every time,” he added with emphasis. “Where did all the money get to?” counsel asked. "I suppose he found that two. could not live cheaper one," interjected ,his Worship. Continuing, defendant explained that for the past month he had heen living solely on his pension, and was not able to work now.. He denied that he had looked his wife, out of the house, and as for striking he had “only clipped her over the ear when she came at him with an umbrella.” “She told me she would not live with me in any shape or form,” witness added.

* Application Dismissed. In dismissing. the application, his Worship pointed out that the circumstances were somewhat peculiar, because the parties had been married only a short time. They were married in June, and before the end of October the wife was asking for a maintenance order. 1 Financial circumstances had altered. The husband was an old man, and before the marriage had a house and furniture. She seemed to be in good health, while he was in bad health. The financial burden of matrimony had apparently been too much. He had got into arrears with payments on his hous.e, and had to go out. It was then arranged that they separate. Up to that date the husband appeared to have maintained his wife to the best of his ability. Since then he had been out of work and had only his pension to live on. There was no evidence that he had failed to maintain her in the past, or that he did not intend-to maintain her in thf future —if he was able to.