APPLICATION FOR SEPARATION ORDER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1178, 29 November 1913, Page 3

APPLICATION FOR SEPARATION ORDER.

BURNETT V. BURNETT

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. W. Poynton, S.M., Sarah Burnett applied for a separation order against her husband, Robert Alexander Burnett, and also for a maintenance order. The grounds upon which the applications were made were : That defendant was an habitual Inebriate, that he was guilty of persistent cruelty towards her, and

that be had failed to provide her with adequate maintenance. The case was set down for hearing last month, but was adjourned on the application of defendant upon his undertaking to keep away from his wife in the interim, and also to pay her maintenance at the rate of

£i per week. Mr R. Moore appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Oram for defendant. A large number of witnesses were examined, the case occupying over four hours. Sarah Burnett, the complainant, in the course of her evidence in regard to the charge of habitual drunkenness said that she had taken five different prohibition orders out against her husband and that one was in force at present. Defendant used to go on a drinking bout every six or eight weeks.

When he was at the end of a bout

he would drink painkiller and at such times witness was afraid of him as he was really dangerous, the painkiller affecting his head.

When “on the wine” defendant would bring undesirables to the house. He would also wear the boarders clothes and had on oc-

casions ordered good boarders away. He was persistently cruel to her and had on on# occasion,

without any provocation whatever.

thrown her out in the back yard, and on another had thrown her out of the front door and she had sustained a severely cut head. During the last two yeais defendant had abused her very much.

The last assault took place about two months ago and as a result she was under the doctor for a

mouth. Defendant also was in the habit of calling her abusive names. Witness also gave lengthy evidence in support of her allegation that her husband had failed to provide her with adequate maintenance.

Kathleen Clegg, waitress at the boarding house since February,

gave evidence to the effect that defendant used to go on drinking bouts. On one occasion she saw

defendant shove complainant out of the door.

Robert Goodall Burnett, adopted son of Mr and Mrs Burnett, stated that defendant was periodically on drinking bouts and expressed the opinion that matters were more satisfactory when they were apart. He said that drink was the cause of all the trouble.

Robert Burnett, the defendant, in evidence denied all the charges brought against him. He was not an habitual inebriate and the prohibition orders that had been granted against him were, with one exception, with his consent. He had consented to this course rather than cause any trouble. He gave lengthy evidence in support of his statement that he had provided adequate maintenance for his wife, and gave instances on which

amounts had been sent to her. Pie istated that the complainant bad a / violent temper and any little

trouble there had been was on this account. He denied absolutely being persistently cruel and stated that he was not in the habit of using abusive language. Since they had been in the boardinghouse at Foxton the place had been re-furnished throughout, the money for this purpose being from the profits of the business and amounts that he had provided when on cooking contracts. When he was in the boardinghouse he used to do the cooking. His reason for defending the present action was in order to clear his character.

George Blanche stated that he had known the parties to the dispute for over 20 years and had never seen any trouble between them. Defendant was not an habitual inebriate. Peter McCullough, assistant cook at the boardinghouse for some time, stated that Burnett was not a man that frequently gave way to excessive drinking. During the time he was at the boardinghouse he had not seen any ill-treatment, defendant’s demeanour towards his y'wife being of the utmost kindness. ' John Ainsworth stated that he had known the parties for eight years and during that lime he had never seen defendant incapable through drink. He had never seen him illtreat his wife. He would certainly not call defendant an habitual drunkard. Charles Williams said that he had never seen Burnett “extra bad’’ through drink. Defendant did not habitually drink to excess. Constable Woods staled that between the expiry of the previous prohibition order against Burnett and the commencement of the present one he was on a week’s drinking bout. The present order was taken out at the request of Mrs Burnett. He couldn’t say that Burnett was a man that habitually drank to excess. On the Sunday on which Mrs Burnett stated that . defendant threw her out of the door and she sustained a cut head, witness saw defendant at it o’clock in the morning and he was then perfectly .sober. He had never » actually seen Burnett ill-treat his 'Vwife, but had heard of instances. Mrs Burnett was continually in witness’ office with complaints, some well founded and some not. Witness was of opinion that the parties would be better apart. Thomas Powell stated that be had not seen any trouble between Burnett and his wife.

A. Walden, a boarder in the boardinghouse since February, stated that he had only seen Burnett under the influence of liquor once and that was when his order expired. Previous to that he did not know that Burnett drank at all. Had never heard any quarrel between Burnett and his wife, but had not seen them together much. William Collingham, another boarder, said he had never seen Burnett drunk or incapable. Had seen him with one or two drinks in. Would not call him an habitual drunkard. Had heard Mrs Burnett say at times that “the boss was on the shicker.” His conduct towards Mrs Burnett had always seemed alright. After counsel had addressed the court the Magistrate said that he didn’t consider the cruelty was such that he could make a separation order on that account nor did he think that it had been proved that defendant had failed to provide adequate maintenance, but defendant, who had been the subject of five prohibition certainly came under the definition of an habitual inebriate. He could make an order on that ground but there were several matters to be taken into consideration. There was an adopted boy nine years of age, of whom defendant was apparently very fond. There was also the furniture in the boardinghouse which apparently belonged to both parties and in connection with which there would have to be some arrangement and there was also the fact that if an order were made it would prejudice defendants’ chance of getting an old age pension should he make application lor one, and the Magistrate said he did not desire to do this. He said he would adjourn the matter until next court day, and in the meantime the parties and their counsel should endeavour to make som amicable agreement. If no agreement were come to he would make an order next court day.