WATSON AND HIS WIFE

NZ Truth, Issue 1141, 13 October 1927, Page 6

WATSON AND HIS WIFE

Elsie Maud's Successful Appeal To Magistrate LAWYER IN THE WITNESS BOX (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) THE question as to whether George Watson has to pay his wife £3 a week for the remainder of her life was the subject of much legal discussion before Magistrate Hunt at the Auckland Magistrate's Court the other day. AFTER many years of happiness, the strings of harmony between George Watson and his wife, Elsie Maud, became frayed, with the result that about five years ago they parted. George then maintained his wife and family by paying her £3 a week. Subsequent happenings led to the wife asking for divorce In August, 1924, but on the very day of the proceedings— in a side room of the Supreme Court — a compromise between the parties, per medium of their legal representatives, was instrumental m preventing their troubles from reaching the publicity of the court. The arrangement was that Watson should pay 10/- a week additional to the £3 until such time as the younger of the two sons had left school. This the husband had done with conscientious regularity until a few weeks ago, when he reduced his payments to 30/-. Consequently the wife appealed to the court for the balance, which had then amounted to a sum of £9. Lawyer Northcote, acting for the wife, stated that after the conference which was the cause of obviat ng divorce proceedings, he had prepared a legal agreement and had forwarded it to defendant's solicitor, Lawyer Singer, with a view to Watson signing. Lawyer Northcote gave evidence on oath as to what had taken place during the conversation m the Supreme Court hi 1924. It was, he said, represented to him that the divorce proceedings would be painful to the family. The wife's relatives, m Watson's presence, had suggested that some agreement could be arrived at whereby the case could be suppressed. Watson had then agreed to pay the £3/10/-. Husband's Changed Financial Outlook Lawyer Singer, who had also been acting for defendant at the time of the cited divorce, followed by giving his evidence on oath. It was never contemplated by his client or himself that the agreement to pay £3 would extend over the wife's term of existence. His client had refused to sign the document on the grounds that it would nullify his right to taking future divorce proceedings which had been m his mind at the time when the wife had proceeded m this direction. The younger son had left school and owing to business depression his client was not now m the financial position of previous years. Elsie Maud Watson supported her lawyer's evidence, describing the assembly of witnesses, etc., awaiting the case at the Supreme Court m 1924 as a "huge family party." Watson's defence, as his counsel had inferred, was that he was not aware any agreement he had entered upon would cover an indefinite period. He had complied with his promise to pay £3/10/- a week until his younger son had left school. The first boy was now earning something like £3/12/---a week and the younger 30/-. His business, which consisted of himself and a partner, had depreciated considerably during the last few ;nonths and he had been obliged to cut his weekly salary down to £5. The firm's books were open to inspection by his wife's counsel or anyone the court wished to appoint. His worship, m giving judgment for the plaintiff for £9, expressed his opinion that although the document might not have been signed, he was quite satisfied that it was m existence, adding: "You should get someone to peruse the books, Mr. Northcote, and see what the man's position really is."