MUDDLED MATRIMONY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1824, 9 May 1918, Page 2

MUDDLED MATRIMONY.

MOTHER-IN-LAW SUES FOR BOARD, A FOXTON QUARREL. (Manawatu Times). At the Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, before Mr W. G. K. Kenrick, S.M., Mary Jane Nelson (Mr H. R. Cooper), sued W. de Bidder (Mr H. G. Moore), for £2O for ten weeks’ hoard. Mrs Nelson was de Bidder’s mother-in-law. Defendant’s wife had left him and had'&jje to live with her mother, taking Two children with her. Mrs Nelson sued for payment of the board of the mother and children. Both parties live at Foxton.

THE MOTHER-IN-LAW. Mary Jane Nelson said she was defendant’s mother-in-law. On August 19th her daughter who had been illtreated by her husband, came to live with her, and had stayed until October 27th. She had been paid no board. If the husband had paid her in a reasonable way she would only have asked 15s for his wife and 10s a week for the two children.

To Mr Moore; Her daughter’s house was only about half a mile away, and while her daughter was at her house the defendant had coma round to see her. She did not tell her daughter not to speak to defendant. Mr Woods, the policeman, knew what marks were on her daughter as the result of ill-treatment of her husband, Mr Moore: Oh, Mr Woods tells a very different story. THE WIFE. Alice de Bidder said she was the wife of the defendant. She corroborated the evidence of her mother about going to live with her owing to her husband’s ill-treatment. She had determined on proceedings for separation, but had abandoned the idea and had gone back to live with her husband. Nothing had been paid by her husband to her mother for their board.

To Mr Moore: She had lived fairly close to her mother. Her husband had come down to her mother’s after he had received a summons in connection with her taking a case for maintenance against him, and she had agreed to go back to him. Mr Moore: Isn’t it true that your husband gave you another chance if you gave up another man? Witness: No. Mr Moore: Isn’t it a fact that you. stayed in the town just prior to this trouble ?

Witness: Yes. I stayed in the Railway Buffet.

Mr Moore: Didn’t Dr. Peach say. that you ought to go home? Witness: When my baby started to get better. Mr Moore: Is it not a fact that you stayed at the Railway Buffet because a returned soldier named Jones McKay was there?. Witness: No. Mr Moore: Well, the people at the hotel said that they had to complain to you about your conduoL* with McKay. That he had taken a room opposite you, and that you went out with him often Witness: No. Mr Moore: You will swear that McKay did not have a room opposite you? Witness: Yes. Mr Moore: Well, what was tEfl conduct you complained of from your husband?

Witness: I took thirty shillings and some , silver from his pocket. I was in bed, and he called me adhief and nearly choked mo. To Mr Cooper: Her husband had illtreated her on other occasions.

THE HUSBAND. William Edward de Kidder said that his wife had cleared out from home in spite .of his efforts to stop her. Ho had never ill-treated her, and she had always what she wanted until she went away. After she left he always locked the house when he went to work. His wife took the two little children, and he had taken two others to his mother. Previously they had both gone to Mr Moore, solicitor, in Poston. She had made a statement against his mother, and had admitted hitting defendant with a mirror and cutting his jaw. To Mr Moore: She had admitted that McKay was living in the opposite room to her at the Buffet. He had meditated about divorce proceedings, but had agreed to give her another chance. The mother enticed his wife away from him. On one occasion when he was at her house the mother had said, “come in, and don’t talk to hum We will talk to him in court.”

Mr Cooper; If you were taking divorce proceedings, what do you mean by saying that the house was there for her to come home?,

Defendant: I was not going to do anything until she started proceed-, ings for maintenance. . Mr Cooper: The fact is that your wife took money from your pocket and that you were-very angry?; Defendant: Not particularly. Mr Cooper: She left you on the grounds of cruelty? Defendant: No. Defendant said that he had got £ll3 into debt while his wife was a* way. He had no one to look after his flax contract while he was losing time looking after his wife. Mr Cooper: When did you hear of this information about your wife which decided you to take proceedings for divorce? x Defendant: After she went awhyP Mr Cooper: Are you not worth several hundreds of pounds? Defendant: No. Mr Cooper; Don't you think Mrs Nelson is entitled Jo payment? Defendant! If I do pay bev shq

will entice my wife away again. To Mr Moore: After his wife had left home and started proceedings for maintenance he had stopped her credit at the stores. Mr Moore in Foxton had advised his wife to go home when they had gone to see him. Both lawyers agreed to patch up a peace between the parties if an adjournment was allowed, this at the suggestion of the Magistrate.