FAMILY SQUABBLES

Gisborne Times, Volume LXV, Issue 10318, 29 January 1927, Page 2

FAMILY SQUABBLES

• DOMESTIC LIFE OF THE. O ’KANES. ; SHOULD LIVE APART, BUT NO ORDER MADE. The connubial relationships of Robert F. O’Kane and Agnes O’Kane during the last twelve months .were - not particularly happy according to evidence heard before Mr. E. C. Levvey S.M. yesterday. The case was one in which Agnes O’Kane (Mr. L.T. Burnard) sought an order lor maintenance and separation against her husband on the grounds of persistent cruelty and failure to mamtain. Respondent was represented by. Mr. J. S. Wauchop. Agnes O’Kane, the complainant, had been married six years. During December last defendant came home and after using abusive language told her to “get out.’’ She had gone to her parents’ home. About three weeks ago witness was coming home froift a dance with her sister when they were accosted by deiendant. He objected to her going to dances and threatened to murder her. Defendant also came to. her parents' house a few days later and threatened to shoot her. To Mr. Wauchop witness denied that the cause of the trouble with her husband was that she went out too much at night and left the children. Her husband told her that lie would not tolerate her going out at night. On the night of the scuttle on the road her sister called out lor her brother Bob. Before that incident her husband accused her of infidelity He always made her-an allowance oi never less than £4 a week. It was practically always £o a week. Witness denied she had got behind with the household accounts. Witness had opened a shop when she first came to Gisborne but the returns fell from £2O a week to £6 a week. She had gone out a great many times at night but there was always some one within hearing el the children. She admitted that while living in 'Hirini street defendant always had to get his own breakfast. Witness admitted when defendant accosted her on the road be did not touch her. Siie hit him with a stick. To Mr. Burnard witness* said that whenever defendant had a lew drinks he used bad language. Nellie McKay, sister of the complainant and Robert McKay, brother, gave evidence regarding the incident on the road. , Robert O’Kane, the defendant, said that at the present time lie had the lease of “Sunrise Orchard” Ksiti. He had had quarrels with his wife over her practice of going out at nights. While they were living in Hirini street complainant often went out twice a week to dances. While in Hirini street also there were oiten as many as five McKays staying in the house at one time with only one of them paying. Complainant also got behind with household accounts. She had at least five clanee frocks last year. In regard to the incident on the road witness said he had threatened to “tie his wife up if she did not keep away from dances and attend to the children. He only meant to frighten her. He had on one occasion assaulted his wife but that was when she had flown at him with a stick and he pushed her over. 10 Mr. Burnard -witness denied that part of iiis income was derived from bookmaking. Ho did not spend time at a “two-up” school.” He did not think the dances were fit and proper places for a woman with two children to go to. Witness had done nothing else but stay at home in the evenings. Witness had Been licing alone in Hamilton for some time and had sent complainant as much as £ls in one week. He sent £3O another time and several times sent her £lO. How 4id you make that? I am not prepared to say. How long was your wife away tor you to send these moneys?—Nine oiten months. . ~ v W T hat was your work m Hamilton. Drainlaying for the Hamilton Borough Council. You are dissatisfied vn.th t-lie way your wife looks after you?—She is hever in the house to look alter me. 'When she is there she stops in bed and I have to get my own breakfast, and often come home to get my own tea and wash up the day’s dishes. To Mr. Vauchcp, defendant said his only income at present was. obtained from “Sunrise Orchard ’ vlucli he had leased. The Magistrate said that it was obvious that the parties ought to live apart. The Court, however, couid make no order.