A PAINFUL CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 136, 19 June 1901, Page 2

A PAINFUL CASE.

MRS JOHN SUNDERLAND SUES FOR MAINTENANCE. (Special to Times.) E Auckland, last night. Tho London correspondent of tho Auckland Star writes : b It was a sad case of domestic unhappi- I ness that Mrs Agnes Letta Sunderland, b formerly of Gisborne, unfolded to the f Bench at Wimbledon Police Court at the c end of last week, when sho summoned her c husband, John William Sunderland, re- £ siding near Silvcrstone, Lancashire, for deserting her. c Mrs Sunderland deposed that she marriod defendant at Chelsea in IS7B. Of tho six children living of tho marriage, three — 1 Ruth, Marmaduko Langley, and Jeffrey— •< were under 16. From 1879 till 1895 she .< lived with her husband in New Zealand, 1 returning to England at the latter date with five children. She took a boarding- i house at Upper Bedford Placo and a small < cottage at Graffham, Sussox, whore the i children resided with a governess. Her husband came to England in August, 1897, and took up his trusteeship of £ISOO per annum for the maintenance and education of the children, £SO being specially for their education. Before she left Now Zealand her husband told hor that he had made over all his property to his brother and sistor. Tho last instalment of the allowance was forwarded to witness from New Zealand on Juno 3rd, 1898, and on October Ist sho sont tho children to her husband at Silverstono. In answer to the Bench, witness said that it was by hor request that cohabitation with hor husband was not ontered into at Upper Bedford Place, but sho always intended the cottage at Graffham to bo their home. On October 13th, sho wrote to her husband, offering to resumo cohabitation, to which ho ropliod that ho did not want her; that ho had abused her ' too much to his brother Randoll, whom ho had told sho was a bad lot, and sho should not be mistress of the liouso if sho ; did come. Sho had intended to go to see her childron at Christmas, but received a [ letter from her husband saying that ho i would not allow her into tho liouso. Last [ February the three eldest girls wore sont 1 back by defendant to witness, and sho had ; since had to support them. Her average i earnings as a nurse were £6O to £7O per s annum, while her husband’s income was • £2OO per annum. > In eross-oxamination witnoss denied , that she refused to co-habit with hor hus--3 band at tho cottage. 3 For the defence it was submitted that i there was no evidence of desovtion, and . that complainant had refused to live with 3 defendant as his wife. His incomo only i averaged £l3O per annum. Mr Sunderland stated that when he a returned to England his wife refused cos habitation, and had ever since dono so. • V He denied that he was of intemperate . habits. Mrs Reynolds, residing in Gisborne, but 3 visiting England, sister of defendant, do- - posed that the incomo of defendant’s s estate was about‘£l2o per annum. He s was also allowed £l6O by witness and her r husband and brother towards tho maintonanee and education of the childron. s The Chairman observed that the i, Bench had come to the conclusion :- that the defendant had committed an s act of desertion. Cohabitation did cease i, for a time, but it was only intended to bo s temporary separation, and complainant s had provided a homo at Graffham. It r was impossible for tho parties to live toi, gather as man and wife in Upper Bedford s Place, but the complainant distinctly i, looked forward to'their coming together at r Graffham. Instead of doiug so, defon- •, dant went away, and stopped his wife’s j allowance, and when sho wrote him a r most affectionate letter on October 13tli, J asking that all differences might cease for d the sake of the children, ho refused to i, have anything to do with her. , The Bench gavo the complainant the is custody of all the children, and made an d order for defendant to allow her 30s per r week for their maintenance, with £2 16s •- 6d costs.