AN UNHAPPY MARRIAGE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 70, 15 December 1921, Page 3

AN UNHAPPY MARRIAGE

DIVORCE SUIT AFTER THIRTYNINE YEARS.

A painful story of unhappy married life was unfolded in the Divorce Court on Tuesday afternoon, when an elderly man, James Osborne (represented by Mr. H. F. O’Leary), asked for dissolution of his marriage with Elizabeth Kate Osborne (Mr. W. F. Ward), on the ground of desertion.

Giving evidence, the petitioner said ho was a tailor’s cutter, and was married to his wife in tho Isle of Wight in 1885. They came to New Zealand shortly afterwards and settled in Christchurch, where five children were born. In 1898 the respondent went to England, taking the children with her. The petitioner had consented to his wife’s taking a sea voyage for the benefit of her health, which was not good at that time. She did not return to New Zealand until 1905. The eldest son remained in England, but the other children returned with their mother. "On the day of her arrival my wife expressed a desire to return to England,’’ said the petitioner, who added that the r'eunion was unhappy and resulted in her return to England seven months later. For a time she lived with her son, but when tho latter went from the Old Country petitioner paid her 10s. a week as maintenance. In 1915 the respondent again arrived in New Zealand, but until yesterday petitioner had not seen her. He paid her maintenance for a period at the rate of £1 a week and later of £1 10s. a week.

Members of the family gave evidence that their mother was always dissatisfied with her lot, and had repeatedly su’d, "I want to go home.” She had been provided with a good home, and had 'been given practically all she desired. She had caused unhappiness in the family circle by her “nagging.” For the respondent, it was submitted that petitioner had paid for her passage to England, and that such action signified his assent to her going for the trip, although unwillingly . "It appears that it is a case of separation by mutual consent,” said Mr. Justice Hosking, the presiding Judge The respondent, who gave evidence, said that both she and her husband were 63 years of age. They had been married for 39 years, and eight children had been born in nine years. After the birth of the last child respondent alleged that her husband had struck her m the eye, injuring her sight. “I was frightened of my husband.” she saidIler husband had stated, when she was ilb that she would either have to take n trip to England or go to an asylum. Her husband went to the steamer to see her off. , . , , . Recalled, the petitioner denied having struck his wife or having threatened to send her to an asylum. His Honour reserved his decision.