SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1252, 30 May 1914, Page 3

SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE CASE.

McKEGNEY V. McKEGNEY. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Myra McKegney (Mr Moore) proceeded against her husband, Arthur McKegney, for a separation and maintenance order on the ground that he had failed and intended to fail to provide her with adequate maintenance and had been guilty of persistent cruelty to her and that he was an habitual inebriate and had on April 24th been convicted summarily of an assault against her and had been sentenced for that offence to imprisonment. She also applied for a maintenance order for their children, Hilton, aged years, George, aged 2 years and 11 months, and Myra May, 2 . aged 13 months, on the ground that he had failed and intended to fail to provide the said children with adequate maintenance. When the cases were called on, Mr Moore said that Mr Cooper, defendant’s counsel, had rung him up and stated that it was impossible for him to attend, and asked that the case should be adjourned for a month. He (Mr Moore) Lad told Mr Cooper that while he personally did not object to the adjournment, his client was strongly opposed to it. Mr Cooper had then asked him to outline the circumstances to the Magistrate and leave it to him whether an adjournment would be granted or not. The defendant said in connection with the application for an adjournment that he was prepared to provide maintenance for his • wife and children until the next : court day. The Magistrate said it seemed a ; reasonable request, but he would first hear what plaintiff had to sa- - ; to the offer. Plaintiff said she wished tb- 1 case to go on. She was desirous ; of going to work to earn a liveli- 1 ' hood, and wanted the protection I of a separation order before she 1 did this. 1 The Magistrate said be would 1 hear the case, and if defendant : had any reasonable grounds for ( defence he would then adjourn it 1 in order that he could get the as- I sistance of counsel. Knowing what he did of the case, however, I he did not see how there could be I any reasonable defence. He told e accused that he would see that he i was protected as far as the case i proceeded. i Both cases were taken together. Mr Moore briefly outlined the 1 circumstances of the case, stating 1 that defendant had for some time . failed to maintain his wife and 1 children. Plaintiff did not desire t maintenance for herself. If a t separation and guardianship order t were granted, she proposed to go to work to support herself, t He called the following witnesses : 1 Myra McKegney in evidence, 1 stated that her husband had not f provided for her or the children I for the past six weeks, and that t she had been obliged to sell some t of the furniture in the house in i order to get money to buy clothes for them. Of late she had been living with her parents, who were t both old age pensioners, her s brother assisting to keep them, t Last court day she had proceeded 1 against her husband for assault 1 for which he was sentenced to 1 fourteen days’ imprisonment. Up c till that time he had maintained the children and herselt, but had \ not done so since. Since last court £ day her husband had written wit- \ ness asking if she would go back £ and live with him if he allowed c her to draw his wages. Her bus- \ band had frequently assaulted her. t Neither witness or her parents were able to support the children, s She proposed to go out to work to f support herselt and to look after 1 the children at night. She desired t a separation as it was impossible t for her to live with her husband s and if she did not have the separa- 1 tion order he might molest her. e After he had come out of gaol he < told her in her parents’ house that he would like to strike her in the 1 face but had been advised not to £ do so. c To defendant : He had assaulted £ her on several occasions, although t it had never been before the court. ] She couldn’t live with him as she t had had enough of it. Previous to the last trouble witness der ed , that she got everything she , wanted. She also denied that de- { fendant had written offering to , maintain her. She wouldn’t accept defendant’s offer of all he , earned because she didn’t want { any maintenance for herself. There was very little in the house to sell after defendant had been using the axe on it. She had sold all but what she required herself for £3. { The rent was only paid up to the day after the last Court sitting. Constable Woods gave formal evidence of the conviction against defendant last court day. Only once previous to this, some years ago, had trouble between t parties been brought into coi . and then i: was finally settled I ] consent. Drink was the cause the trouble on that occasio These two instances of assau were the only ones he knew of. Sarah Ann Honour said she ■ knew both plaintiff and defendant She had never seen defendant assault plaintiff, but had seen plaintiff with black eyes and bruised face, and in connection with the case heard at the last sitting of the court she had seen her on that occasion with her head all cut and bleeding. , Linda Webb, mother of plaintiff, stated that at present plaintiff and her children were living with witness and her husband. Witness’ son had supported them, as neither 1 witness or her husband were able < to do so. McKegney had paid 1 nothing towards their support. I

When McKegney came out of gaol he came to witness’ house and caused a disturbance, threatening to strike his wife. Witness ordered him out and came up for Constable Woods, but he was in Palmerston North. Witness knew that defendant had been very cruel to his wife. Ever since they had been married he had illtreated her. She thought drink had a good deal to do with it. She wished to have defendant kept away from her house as he had threatened to poison both herself and her husband and said if he couldn’t do that he would shoot them. He said he would put poison in the tank if he could not do it any other way. He also threatened to poison his wife. •To defendant ; Witness denied that she bad ever said anything about getting defendant ten years. It was at witness’ bouse that defendant threatened to assault her and also said he would burn them out. Witness said she didn’t want to be mixed up in defendant’s affairs and told him that if he didn’t slop molesting her she would go to the police. She bad laid a charge against defendant for following her and insulting her by usiug bad language. When detendant came to witness’ bouse he did not ask for all his tools but did ask for his 3 This closed the case for the plaintiff. Arthur McKegney, the defendant in the case, said that previous to the trouble ventilated last court day there was everything that was required in the house, in fact there were two homes there. Witness put any amount of food in the house and on the advise of Constable Woods gave plaintiff the key and told her everything was there for her. He did not order her out of the house. He also paid the rent in advance. When witness came out of gaol he found the home sold up. He never asked plaintiff to go out of the house, but told her everything was there for her. Witness wanted the home back or ,£3O taken off the maintenance order, as he valued the home at at least /30. Witness said he was expecting counsel to defend him but circumstances had arisen which made it impossible for his solicitor to be present. The Magistrate pointed out that the law wouldn’t compel a woman to live with her husband if she didn’t want to, although, of course, if she left without sufficient reason she would not be able to obtain a maintenance order. Continuing defendant said that he had written to his wife telling her she could live in the house. He did not intend to live there. He didn’t think it was a fair thing to get a man in gaol and then sell the home. Plaintiff had no need to go and live with her mother. To Mr Moore: Witness said he thought plaintiff could live with him. He denied making a row at Webb’s house. All he did was to ask for his clothes. Witness said he had been before the court three times. He was quite willing to maintain the children and never wished anything else. This closed the case. The Magistrate said he did not think all the solicitors in Palmerston could help defendant out of the matter. He was liable to maintain his children and his wife was not compelled to live with him. He asked how much defendant earned. Defendant said that if he was working full time he would earn about £2 10s per week. He asked , what allowance would be made on 1 account of the home, which had cost about ,£6O, and which he ■ valued at but sold by plain- ; tiff for ,£3. The Magistrate said plaintiff should know the value of the furniture as well as defendant did. In any case she had, no doubt, as much to do with getting the home together as defendant had and consequently it was as much hers as : his. He said he would make an order of 10s per week for each child. The police suggested that perhaps the children could be sent to a training farm or home, but defendant strongly protested against this, saying he wished them to be kept with the mother, i Plaintiff also stated she wanted the children with her. The Magistrate said he would not care to send them to a home unless there was some good reason for It. Children were always much better left with their mother. . Defendant asked how often he would be allowed to see the . children. 1 The Magistrate said there was no reason why defendant should not be able to see the children provided he was sober. He thought the whole trouble was due to drink and although of course he could not say what would happen in the future, women were notoriously forgiving and it was quite possible that a reconciliation might eventually he brought about. Defendant would be allowed to see the children once a month provided he was sober. His Worship added it was a great pity to see a family broken up like the present one through drink. The application for a separation and guardianship order was granted, defendant to have accesss of the children once a month, provided he is not under the influence of liquor. An order was made for the payment of maintenance for the children at the rate of 10s per week for each child, 30s per week in all, with costs 21s and witness’ expenses 3s, payments to be made fortnightly, first payment to be made on June 12th. The Magistrate advised defendant to keep away from the drink, saying he was satisfied it was the cause of the whole trouble.