SEPARATION CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3769, 20 August 1907, Page 3

SEPARATION CASE.

At the S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., nearly the whole of the morning sitting was devoted to the hearing of an application for a separation order. Jane E. Cunningham (Mr Reade) charged her husband, A. E. Cunningham (Mr G. Moore), with persistent cruelty, neglect to provide maintenance, and applied for a separation order, and also for possession of the children. Plaintiff deposed that she was married to defendant in February, 1904, and her married life bad been very unhappy and unsatisfactory. Defendant, had been drinking the whole time, except for a few short spells. Defendant had struck her when sober. On September last when plaintiff smacked the child, defendant struck her in the eye. Went to the chemist’s in company with her father, and got the wound dressed. Constable Whitehouse was present and saw the eye being dressed. The plaintiff gave evidence as to minor assaults and drunkenness on the part of defendant. On one occasion he threw a Hat iron at plaintiff, and threatened to screw her neck and cut her throat. ■ He had since declared that he never threw the iron at plaintiff. On

another occasion, while in a state of intoxication, he misbehaved i himself in the presence of plaintiff f and another female, and threw a chak at them. The chair hit her cousin. One Saturday afternoon in April last he came home slightly inebriated, and asked for his dinner. The meal had been put away. Defendant complained about the food being cold. After an altercation, defendant threw a loaf of bread and a saucer at plaintiff. He again used threatening language. Plaintiff had not returned to him since May last. She decided to give him another chance, but after a few words defendant advised her to get a separation order. She had been living with her parents since leaving her husband, and had taken the children with her. Had only received 45s from defendant since May, and most of that went in paying the rent of the house be occupied. Had not asked defendant for money. Plain-

tiff then enumerated the articles of furniture she claimed. I By Mr Moore; Defendant had 'given her money, but not enough to keep the house going. Defendant was not the worse for liquor when he cut plaintiff’s eye open. Admitted picking up a knife in self defence. Defendant could not give up the drink, and plaintiff was not prepared to give him another chance —she had put up with quite enough. Plaintiff’s parents had not influenced her to leave her husband. When he was in his sober senses he had threatened “to do for her.” He threatened if proceedings were taken, “ to do for plaintiff and her father.” Could never be happy with him again, because she had lost all faith in him. He got more beer when prohibited than at other times. Had to take in boarders to make ends meet. . Constable Whitehouse gave evidence as; to injury to plaintiff’s eye, and was instrumental in bringing about a reconciliation after the assault. Defendant expressed regret for what he bad done, and said it was the result of his wife’s nagging. Defendant had been convicted of using obscene language and drunkenness, and hadf been prohibited. Mary McKay, who had resided at plaintiff’s house, gave evidence in reference to the flat iron and ‘chair assaults. Defendant gener-

ally came home the worse for "" liquor. Had also heard him use threatening language. By Mr Moore: Was staying with plaintiff’s parents for a time . and left suddenly. Defendant objected to witness living in his house. Was not responsible for rows between plaintiff and defendant.

Thos. Henderson, father of plaintiff, gave evidence as to defendant’s drinking habits and bad languag-e. Had warned defendant to keep away from his (witnesses) premises. Had taken a prohibition order out against him. By Mr Moore: Defendant was always insulting. Had never influenced his daughter. Had done everything in his power to bring abofet a reconciliation. The whole trouble had been caused through drink. Mr Moore admitted a good deal of bickering had occurred, and drink was at the bottom of it. He suggested that the cas?e should be adjourned in order to allow the parties to bring about a reconciliation. He referred to the home and the children. Both parties were young, and it was not too late to make a fresh start. He admitted ' his client’s drinking habits were bad, but there was no reason why he should not overcome them.. If the plaintiff was of the same mind at the end of three months then the case could be concluded. The S.M. said, the plaintiff’s grounds for making an order were quite sufficient. It was to be hoped a reconciliation would take j place. He would adjourn the case forlhree months, defendant to pay lssLper week into Court for maintenance, plaintiff to'have control of the children, and to be under no obligation to go back to her husband unless she desired, and to have the right to bring the case on | by giving seven days’ notice. DeI fendant would have the right to see the children between the hours of five and six p.m., and on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. The question of costs would be adjourned.