THE BANKER'S CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST

NZ Truth, Issue 1176, 14 June 1928, Page 9

THE BANKER'S CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST

(From "N.Z. Truth'a" Special Christchurch Representative.)

No itiah knows ritdre about cheques, capital investment, the computation of income on fixed deposits and the intricacies of financial accounts than a bank officer, but the check which came the way of Clemant Alexander Stevens, one-time managtr of the Papaniii branch of the National Bank of New Zealand at Christchurch, and now of the bank's Oamaru staff when he sought a divorce at the hands of fudgt Adams from his Birdie Christina, was of a most disturbing character.

r PHB matrimonial cheque ho attemptX ed to cash in the Christchurch Divorce Court last week was searchingly scrutinized by his honor and returned pronto with the endorsement: "No grounds for a decree." flowever successful Stevens Is as a regular bank officer, he has . proved a failure as a teller of matrimonial bliss. He considered his capital investment in the bank of matrimony had yielded no dividends of happiness. His patience account being heavily overdrawn, he endeavored to unload his stock of husbandly responsibility in the matrimonial clearing-house. But the judge said "No." The net result of all this is that dlem&nt Alexander must Still continue paying In to what has proved a most unprofitable investment. His commitments fun ih to £3 per week and there are no dividends by way of wifely affection and home comforts'. All very Unfortunate for this bank Officer, Who has risen to a post of responsibility, but had he exercised as much wisdom, care and attention ih looking after his domestic menage as he lavishes upon his official duties, things might have been different. So unimpressed was the judge with the tangled tale that Stevens told that he did not consider it necessary to hear the wife, who was present in court fo oppose the petition* The ground for Stevens' suit was alleged desertion of himself by his wife. He assumed the role of the badlytreated husband with dignity, and, at first, conviction, but by the time Lawyer C. Si Thomas, who appeared for Birdie, h>d finished, SteVeha' story was badly crumpled. He had a gruelling experience under cross-examination and was asked many questions concerning his capacity for alcoholic liquor. Stevens emphatically denied that he had been in the habit of coming home to his wife very much the worse for liqilbr and that th'lß wad the reason she left him, Indeed, he could hardly believe his ears that such an allegation could be made. When Lawyer Thomas kept to the

Birdie's Love Nest

point and said he waa prepared to put a leading Christchurch medico, Dr. Pullon, in the box to testify as to Stevens' inso"briety during a serious illness suffered by his wife, Clemant retorted that if the doctor said that he would bb making a big mistake. But to begin at the beginning of this ill-fated marriage* It Was in August, 1922, that the dapper bank officer led Birdie Christina Baxter, a blushing bride, to the altar. What happened after the happy day was told in detail by Stevens, who made much of his matrimonial woes. From what he had to say, mothers-in-law have hot improved on their traditional reputations. After the wedding, the young couple took up their residence with the bride's mother at her home in Sherbourne Street. Stevens said he had a house in Stapletftn's Road, "but my wife did not like that part of Christchurch." They lived with ma-ln'-law for about twelve months, but Clemant Alexander did not label himself as a happy man. "We did not get on very well," he said. "My mother-in-law was constantly interfering and causing trouble. "Several times I wanted to make a move, but it Was twelve months before my Wife would agree to board elsewhere." Finally lie induced his wife to leave the parental roof. l*he couple then boarded at a house in Armagh Street. "But my AVife did not like it and we stayed only two months; theh I took a place for her in Gloucester Street. "She did hot like it there very much and was very dissatisfied, so I took her to ray people's place in Geraldine, where she remained for about five weekd." Then back once more to Christchurch, where they took a house exactly opposite ma-in-law's establishment. Two years had almost elapsed j by this time, and, said Stevens, ''there was constant trouble between us. My wife was for ever threatening to clear out."

And then one fine evehihg Stevens came home from the bank to find that his little Birdie had flown, taking all her belongings and the little girl of the marriage. He later received two summonsesone on the ground that he was an habitual drunkard and the other for maintenance for the child. Birdie wanted separation, maintenance and guardianship, but at that time Stevens was not prepared to face the music Of the publicity of the maintenance court, so he entered Into a private agreement to pay his wife £2 10s. per week. "But I kept on the house after my wife left for about five wooks," he explained to the court. She did not return—nor did he ask her to. Time went by and in May, 1926, he was the recipient of anothor summons for separation, maintenance and guardianship on the grounds of failure to maintain. "Yes," he said, in answer to his counsel, Lawyer Roy Twyneham, '1 only keiit back the maintenance payments temporarily because of the trouble over the question of access to mv child." Birdie, he admitted, had brought the child round to his office for him to see it. there. This time Stevens braved all and contested the wife's proceedings. iiitinimiiimniiiiliimiiiniiiuiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiminiiliniuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiimiiiitiniuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiimminimiiiiMiinMiiimiiiiMiimliiitiiiumiiiMi iiumirmiiiiimniimiimmiimmiimiiiimiiin

When he appeared before Magistrate Young, he had ait unlucky day, for the bench believed the wlfe'd story and awarded her maintenance at the rate of £3 weekly. He denied that his wife had ever approached him with a view to "making it up." He had no Interview with her oh the subject/' "The only thing she ever wanted Nvhen she came to see me was motley," he added ruefully. , Lawyer Thomas then took a hand. Now, what were your drinking habits during the time you were with your wife? — 'Very moderate. Very moderate may cover a fair amount. By that, do you mean that you just had an odd drink for a few weeks and then not touch it for a week or two?— Yes. Then it would not be true that you name home continuously under the influence Of drink? — No; there is no truth in that. Now, be careful how you answer; you have come home drunk ? — I never went home drunk in my life. It may be you think you are not drunk until you are on the floor? Wave you ever been under the influence of liquor when coming home to your wife? — No, never. You would admit that it would be very wrong to oome home drunk to lUuiHtttutiitttuittuniiiiiiniHiuttiniifiirnintutiiinntiiuiniitiiitihiniiiitttiniiitfiiiinHithiuninnin

your -wife when she was In bed Dl? — It would be if I ever did it Dr. Pullon, who attended your wife during her illness, will say that when your wife was ill you came home one night drunk whilo he was there. He frill, also say that you called at his place late one night and that you wers drunk also on that occasion? — That is news to me. Hid honor interrupted somewhat testily. "Don't say that. Do you say that it is not true?" Stevens heaved himself up In the box. "Yes, sir," he answered, "I say It is not true." Lawyer Thomas: Did you not arrive at Dr. Pullon'a place at one o'clock in the morning on one occasion?— No, I think the doctor has made a mistake. But he knows you quite •well?—! have only seen him twice. Has not Dr. Pullon told you that you should be home looking after your flick wife? — 'No, he has not. And if the doctor says that on one occasion when he was attending youf i wife you were-under the influence of ] liquor, that would be untrue, I suppose? — Yes, it is untrue. Were you by chance so drunk that you don't remember being there? — No, Dr. Pullon has made a mistake on both occasions. ; Your wife will say that night after i night you went out? — Tes, I used to go out on account of conditions in the home. i Used you to get liquor when you went out at nights? — Occasionally, I would have a drink. Your wife will also say she had to put up with your coming home drunk at night and being violently and disgustingly ill on the floor and in the bedroom. Is that true?— No, It is not true. Stevens denied emphatically that he had been a heavy drinker when he was living with his wife. He strongly contested the statement that he had approached his • wife and had asked her to "make it up."' Lawyer Thomas: Well, your wife will say that you asked her to do so and she actually advertised for a home? — That's the first I have heard of it.

Wife Cleared Oat

Questioned about the maintenance proceedings, when the magistrate made orders against him, Stevens said he, gave evidence himself, but had not called any witnesses. He had told the magistrate that his wife Had deserted him. Lawyer Thomas then demanded to know why he had not appealed against the decision if he considered it a wrong one. Stevens replied that he had a solicitor appearing for him and "left it all to him." Oounsel: And you now say that the orders against you were wrongly made? — Yes, I do. You never made any attempt to talk it over with your wife ?— No. And why not? — Well, she cleared out on the advice of her solicitor. Stevens went on to say that he had called on his wife oh one occasion. "She sent our little girl to the door to say nasty things to me." He added that he did not call again after this experience. "I h&d to ask her to keep away from the bank, as she was becoming a nuisance there. She came threatening to make a scene ..." This was alleged to have occurred when Mrs. Stevens called at the bank for her maintenance money. Stevens candidly admitted that he had displayed no interest in his little daughter. "No," he agreed^ when tackled on the point by Lawyer Thomas, "I never wrote to her or gave her Christmas or birthday presents." He took up this unfatherly attitude because "the child was taught to hate me." This was denied emphatically. After an independent witness had been heard, stating that she had no knowledge of the alleged drinking habits of Stevens, although she had lived in the same house with the coliple, the judge intimated that he would not require to hear the defence. "I think the whole of the evidence before me is against the petitioner," said his honor, who forthwith dismissed the petition.