DIVORCE COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 50, 22 November 1919, Page 3

DIVORCE COURT

WIFE'S PETITION

A BURGLAR THE RESPONDENT

In tho Divorce Court yesterday beforo His Honour Mr, Justice Ilosking nnd a jury of twelve, the ease of Alice Violet Foreman v. Edward Alfred Foreman, a petition for divorce, was heard. Mr. 0. S. Mazengarb appeared for tho petitioner, and the respondent conducted his own-.case. Mr. Aclam Dalgliesh was foreman of the jury. N Mr. Mazengarb, in opening-, said that the respondent was at present undergoing a term of imprisonment for burglary. I'lio parties were married in March, 1911, and they lived together for about fivo months, but their domestic troubles began soon after marriage and they camo before tho Magistrate in Nelson. Tho grounds of tho petition were: (1) desertion, and (2) misconduct with various women- _ Counsel claimed that there was constructive desertion, but on the other ground, misconduct, he could not rely entirely on the evidence ho would produce. The petitioner, Alice Violet Foreman, said she was married to the respondent in March, 1911, at Auckland. She was introduced to Foreman by her sister. At the time of marriage the respondent had no money, but witness had i! 10' and part of that was used in paying . the marriage expenses. • They lived in rooms in Dcvonport for about three months. Almost every night he wanted to turn her out of the room, and he only gavo her enough money to pay actual expenses. One night she was turned out: it was Taining very hard; she did not know whore to go, and she stayed out in the rain. On another occasion ho turned her out of their rooms and 6he took refuge in. the Churoli of England and stayed there all night. She saw the parson tho noxt day and the latter caw- tho respondent, who made' promises of reform, but there was no change in his conduct. They left Devonport and wtsit to Te Puke, where she had to live in. ft ..shanty in which there was only the bed and. a few boxes. The respondent .got work on a farm out of To Puke. On one occasion ho threw her down on the. ground, and she was afraid to stay with him so she went into tho scTub and stayed there all night. Sho was not provided with money to buy clothes when sho went into a nursing home. On one occasion she was forced to walk alxiut twenty miles. On tho road she was overtaken by a gentleman driving a,buggy and lie gave her a seat in the vehicle, but the vehicle brcko down and she was thrown out. In Wanganui, sho was in a nursing home and she was there -about three weeks when her child was born. The respondent eamo to see her at tho home, and sa.w her about three times before tho child was born; ho camo two or three days aflor the baby was bora, took it from her, and said he would take the child.. The nurse intervened, took the child from him. and ordered him not to come liack. Witness later got the respondent to have the birth of the child registered, and sho desired the name of Clara for tho baby, but the respondent gave the child six Christian names. Later, the respondent nsked her to meet him at tho railway station with the babv, which she did. Ho wanted to take tW child from her but she refused. All this time tho respondent did not maintain her. Later, witr.ess went with her sister to Nelson, where she got work. Foreman turned up in Nelson, nnd terrified her because ho wanted to take her baby away from her. In March. 1912, she saw the respondent again. Sho was taking the baby' out for a walk; sho heard someone following and looking round sho saw the respondent with an open umbrella- to hide his fare. Witness ran. and tho respondent followed, knocked her down, and took the child away. She saw the polico and got her child back tho next day- Proceedings followed in the Magistrate's Court, Nelson, nnd witness was granted separation, guardianship and maintenance for the child. The respondent was allowed to see tho child for one hour once a week. Later, witness camo to Wellington and had an interview with Miss Bremner with resuect. to obtaining? work. Foreman pushed his way in. but Miss Bremner ordered him out. She went to tho Taita Hotel and there as-ain Foreman turned up and she came back to Welli'isrtbn and stayed with Miss Bremner. While there, tho respondent was continually about the place peering through windows and endeavouring to iret" the child. Towards tho end of 1913 her position had beeomo unbearable. She went to' England to her people > ,r id sho had not. been long there beforo fie respondent a.pneared on the scene. Her people persuaded her to rejoin her husband for the sake of her child, and she did so. They went to London, but ho resumed his cruelty towards her. She annealed to her brother, and he came to London, and on her brother's solicitations she let the respondent have tho r.hiln'. She continued to reside in England. but the respondent returned to New Zealand with their child. In November. 191 G. she received a eable messaee. which informed her that her husband had been sentenced to six years' imnrisonment for burglary. Witness returned to New Zealand in March. 1917, and found that her chilrf was in St. Marv's Home, TCarori. Cross-examined, witness denied, .that sho knew respondent had no money; on the eontrarv. she was Under the impression that lie was comfortably off. Witness admitted that ten days after tho marriage she received a cable message from Canada from a man to whom she had been previously engaged. She wrote to the centleman. It was not a fact that sho displayed indifference towards resnondent after receipt of the cable rnessacc. It was not a fact that she deserted the respondent on several occasions. Elizabeth R. Bremner, formerly officer in charge of the Women's Bureau of the r.alxiur Department, and Elsie May Smith,, married woman, also gavo evidence on behalf of the petitioner. Evidence was also, given by DetectiveSeru'ea.nt Mason, Plain-clothes Constable Tricklebank, and Constable Price. This olosetf the case for the petitioner, Tho resnondent went into the witnesshnx and made a long statement denying all tho allesations in the petition and th.! statements made by some of the witnesses. The case will be continued to-day.