DE BIDDER V. DE BIDDER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 2033, 25 September 1919, Page 3

DE BIDDER V. DE BIDDER.

PETITION FOR ALIMONY,

At the Palmerston Supreme Court on Tuesday, before His Honour Mr Justice Hosking, Alice do bidder (Mr H. 11, Cooper) petitioned for permanent alimony from William Edward de Ridder (My H. Gifford Moore). A dissolution of marriage was granted last February on the application of Mr de Ridder. Dr. Putnam deposed that Mrs do Ridder had been under his care at different times during the last two years. She suffered from a pelvic affection, resulting in mental depression and ill health generally. She was not physically strong, apart from this condition. If she kept perfectly well she might be able to earn her own living, but in her present condition she was not able to do so.

Cross-examined by Mr Moore: If she was living a “racket ty” life it. would tend to make her worse. He believed Mrs de Ridder had been doing something as a servant in an hotel. At ordinary times she could iio-t carry out without stops owing to the state of her health. Mrs de Ridder was called, and in reply to His Honour, Mr Cooper said that the amount asked' for was 20s or 25s per week. In reply to Mr Cooper, Mrs de Ridder said that since the divorce she had been working and had been living with her sister at Foxton. Between February and July she was working for three weeks-as a kitchen maid at Masterton, earning £1 a week and her keep. Afterwards for six weeks she was relieving maid in an hotel in Palmerston, but left because the work was too hard. Then she worked in another hotel, but left because she bad to go to (be hospital. After four days she; went back to Foxton, but did not do any work because she wax too ill. She had been under the cave of Dr. Mandl, of Foxton, who told her she was iiot to work. Urn- sister at Foxton had been maintaining her. Before the divorce she was at various times in the hospital at Palmerston where she was operated upon. She did not have any of the children with her, and was asking for support for herself.

Cross-examined by Mr Moore: She was living in Foxton up to the time of the incidents that were alleged against her at the divorce. She left her husband and the four children, and went away with Nielson (who Avas the co-respondent), her brother, and another girl. She had not seen Nielsen since the day of the divorce, although se had heard he Ava« in Foxton. She denied that she was sent away from the hotel in Palmerston because she had men in her room. She also denied having a man named Mackay" in her room. While, in Palmerston she went to three or four dances. It was not a fact that she was continually out at night with returned soldiers. She laid instructed her solicitor to ask for 10s per week or £IOO down; she did not mind which site got. She had not been allowed to spe her children; the eldest child was 12 years, and the youngest nearly four years old. She had not tried to get work in a private house. Lionel Frank dc Bidder deposed that his wife was a sister of Alice dc Bidder, Iho applicant in this case, who has been living with them since last July. Her health had not been good, and she had mil done any work except a little about the house. He did not think she would be able to take a place and earn her living. by Mr Moore, witness said that he and his broth, er (William Edward de Bidder) did not speak very much. Nielson, avlio Avas co-respondent in the divorce case, Avas back at Foxton, but so fur as he knew- Mrs de Bidder (the applicant) did not meet him.

William Edward de Bidder, the respondent, deposed that he was a paddoeking contractor for a flaxluill. At present he had overdrawn about £49 from the company, being advances made against tlax in sight. His house was worth about £550, and had a mortgage of £l5O on it. His average earnings in 1918 were £8 15s pci’ week, this being his best year, and he did not save anything out of it. Since his wife went away he let the house for 13s per week, and put the children with his mother, allowing her 11s 0d per week each for them and 25s per week for himself. In addition to that he had to provide them with clothing. He objected to allowing his wife anything she went away and took everything that was moveable easily,' including a sewing machine and overmantel. She did not lake the furniture generally. Since the divorce he saw his wife with another woman non]’ the Square gardens in Palmerston, and two men came up and one said, “Here’s my little girl,” The four of them sat down on a seat, and respondent passed them, and his wife then got up arid went away. On another occasion he saw his wife go into a garden in the Square with another man. Respondent considered it would take him all his time to keep himself and his children.

His Honour pointed out that allowing, £IOO for clothing, and deducting the 13s per week received for house rent, respondent would have to pay about £4 18s per week, which was different to the £8 15s it was costing him previously, v ."Respondent said that his price from the flaxmill had been reduced 3s per ton this year, and he was out of work for five months.

Respondeut was cross-examined, at length by Mr Cooper regarding his probable earnings this season, and said they would amount to about £5 5s per week. He had a second house from which he would re-

ceive 10s per week, and-for this house he had paid £135.; He also had £9O lent out, and some money in the Post Office Savings Bank. This concluded the hearing of the evidence, and His Honour said the Court was always very reluctant to grant maintenance to a guilty wife. He asked Mr Cooper if he could quote any previous ease in which the circumstances were similar where maintenance was granted. . Mr Cooper said that in a similar case maintenance has been granted. His Honour said he had often wondered what became of thlse divorced women. How they lived nobody knew. There should he some sort of institution to look after them. If a husband had to maintain his divorced wife it might interfere with him marrying again, and if anything was granted to a w.oman she might not try to work. If the woman could not work it meant that she would come on the Charitable Aid Board, and then the public would have to support her. He would like to speak to the other judges before giving a decision in the present case. He had never made such an order as was now asked for in favour of a guilty wife, when it was opposed unless the husband was a man of means, and then it had been on the ground that if the husband did not maintain -the wife the State would have to do so. ‘Tie thought he would speak to some of the other judges about-the matter in Wellington next week; .but if an order was made it would have to be limited to a small sura. In any event it would have to he subject to a condition that it could always be varied; if the husband’s income came down the amount allowed would have to come .down too. Ultimately His Honour reserved judgment for the purpose of consulting the other judges, and also to ascertain from Mr Justice Chapman (before -whom (he divorce proceedings were heard) the evidence taken at those proceedings. —Standard.