MARITAL MISERIES.

NZ Truth, Issue 138, 8 February 1908, Page 5

MARITAL MISERIES.

THE JOYS OF THE JOHNSON'S. Why was Elliott Biffed? Were they Brothers or Boarders? The relations subsisting between a Wellington coach-painter named William, Johnson and his spouse Helen haven't been very cordial of late, and tho marital differences have, been fraught with considerable disaster for William, who has even suffered gaol on his wife's account. He suspects his bosker half of kindness to at least one male person who isn't her husband, and hubby went to quod on that individual's account. Tbe most recent development was a charge m the Magistrate's Court of failing to maintain his superfluous missus and six kids under an order to pay £1 10s a week, made on September 30. Johnson dubbed up £3 10s and also paid the rent before he retired from public view m the present abode of Hamilton and Sinclair, burglars, and as there is no pay-day on the hill, contributions ceased for two whole months. The temporary criminal came out on the 20th of January and went back to his own home m spite of the separation order. According to the missus he has been living there off and on without her consent ever since. She put him out once, but like the cat that couldn't stay away, he cam* back again. Baronet Douglas defended, and asked : How have you lived ? Did you run into debt ?— No :■ I am not m debt. How have you been living, if you are not m debt ?— My brothers gave, me money— about £4. On your own showing, then, you have had £7 10s from your husband and brothers since September. Have you lived on that ?— I was supported by charitable aid. The woman said this aid was given m the shape of food, or 5s towards the ihinuitous rent. She was paying £1 a week rent to some cormorant landlord, whose punishment m Hell will' be to live m one of h's own hovels and have the rent perpetually paid to him m the shape of whitehot sovereigns poured on the tenderest part of his anatomy- by the miserable , women and children whose lives he has been the means of PINCHING AND STARVING. Questioned- about her own earnings, Mrs Johnson said, "Never you mind what I made'!" But pressed on the subject she acknowledged about £1 altogether, obtained by sewing. Why was your, husband sent to gaol ?— For assault on Mr Elliott. Is Mr Elliott a friend of yours ?— No. . You went about together"?— No, we never 'Hd. Didn't your husband commit the assault through that ?— No, it was through his drunkenness. He intended to hit me and hit Mr Elliott. Your husband has been living with you since the separation. You were sharing the same bedroom ?— No, nothing of the kind ; I can prove it. You had boarders ? — No, they were friends. /Gentlemen ?-n Yes. They were. my own brothers' friends.They were living there after your brothers went ?— No. There was One gentleman friend there who has just gone up country ? —Oh, he was only there for a few days. He slept m the house ?— No, •he didn't sleep m the house. To Mr Dunn (for complainant) : My husband has been drinking a great deal. Doueclas, Bart., submitted three reasons why an order should not be made : fl) They alleged that the parties had been living together as man and wife since the issue of the order ; (2) Johnson had paid his wife far more than he was obliged to do by the order ; (3) the missus wasn't living m the odor of strict morality. Solicitor Dunn submitted that it wasn't relevant to the issue to allege misconduct, and Magistrate Riddell upheld this contention. Evidence couldn't be called on this interesting point. 'Johnson got into the box himself and stated that when the separation order was granted he obtained work at Petohe and went out there to live, but his singular spouse followed him and prevailed upon him to return to her hearth and home. He had been there ever since. The wife : It's lies. Johnson went on to say that he h_d given the missus, on an average, £2 5s a week since he came out of quod, and there was only two weeks' rent owing, to his 'knowledge. Have you slept m the same bedroom as your wife ?— Yes ; on several occasions. I slept with her a week or a fortnight after the separation order was granted. The missus, who had been interjecting throughout, here made an inaudible remark, expressing dissent. Has your wife ever ordered you out of the house ?— Well, she ordered me out this morning, but I've SLEPT THERE EVERY NIGHT. Against the wish of your wife ?— No. The defendant was proceeding to call Iw Johnson, but Magistrate Riddell considered there was no necessity. His Worship remarked that the fact that the parties had come together again was sufficient, under section 6, to annul the maintenance order. The complainant had said that her husband was living with her without her consent, but his Worship very much doubted this. The information was dismissed. Bart. Douglas : Will your Worship annul the order. His Worship, who would not allow costs, said that if it was a fact the parties were living together, then the order ceased.