"IS THAT YOU, DARLING?"

NZ Truth, Issue 1179, 5 July 1928, Page 4

"IS THAT YOU, DARLING?"

But It Was Not The Darling She Was Then Expecting

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Havelock Representative.) When a man returns home unexpectedly and, m playful mood, blindfolds his wife from behind, he is entitled to a little suspicious deduction if the lady says: "Good morning, baker— two loaves, please. " But then, that scarcely stands on all fours with this case.

LET us lead you', nevertheless, to one of those little surprise visits, without which no melodrama would be complete. We needs must turn to the Havelock Courthouse for pur chronicle of fact when Gladys Richards proceeded against Wilbur Charles Richards on one of these little separation and maintenance cases so allied to domestic apple-carts which have become upset m the ruts of connubial unhappiness. The scales of justice were held, on this occasion by Magistrate Maunsell. Lawyer Reid delivered himself of the facts. He said the parties were married m England m 1919, arriving m New Zealand m 1921, when they went to Blenheim and later to Havelock, where defendant conducted a motor garage business. There were two children of the marriage, the eldest, a son, being left m England with his grandparents, and he was to follow at a later date. The other child, a daughter, accompanied her nai-ents.

arriving m Havelock early m May, 1928. It was 9.30 p.m., when she opened the door of her old residence. A "lady" was sitting on the couch and greeted her as the door opened, with: "Is that you, darling?" Complainant replied: "You've made a mistake this time, this is my home., you get out of it at once." The astounded woman at once complied, leaving* m great haste to find defendant who then took her to Blenheim, returning alone m the small hours of the mornfng. ■ Gladys, m the meantime, sought refuge with a neighbor. Several attempts at reconciliation were made,. but all to no purpose, Wilbur, preferring to make nightly and. week-end trips to Blenheim. Ci-oss-examined by Lawyer Smith, Gladys admitted having damaged Wilbur's profile by throwing a brush al him, but claimed justification as he had previously knocked the little daughter down. Although he had advertised that he i would not be res-

All went well until April, 1927, when It was arranged that Gladys should return to England

for the purpose of bringing the son out to New Zealand. Accordingly, she and the daughter sailed, for Home m April, 1927, Wilbur having paid the fare there ,-but not the .return, and further /providing Gladys with the sum of £12 as pocket-money. Complainant duly arrived m England. 7 During the voyage she had written letters to Wilbur and posted them at the first port of call. A month or so after arriving, she received a letter and £3 from defendant, the letter being written m very endearing terms. This, however, was the first and last time she had heard from him. She kept on writing and forwarded birthday presents and even cabled him, but still there was no reply. Being almost destitute, she was compelled to seek employment as a waitress, but owing to the daughter contracting whooping cough, she was compelled to give up the job and seek help from the guardians.. Communicating with friends, she learned that her . husband was still m Havelock. In January, 1928, a friend cabled her £40 and the Salvation Army assisted her with £12 and this enabled her to return to New Zealand,

~ average, ; £2/10/---weekly since her return. She used this to buy food, etc., with and Wilbur had his share. She stoutly denied that they had lived as man and wife-since her return. Wilbur explained his three v days' • absence m Blenheim, saying he had sent the young "lady" (naming her "Miss Vercoe") away to Auckland, giving her £3 to go with. He had stayed an extra day to take her to Picton m order to save the train fare, but admitted that his business was closed m the meantime. His average takings would be •£3/10/- to £4 per week; his profits, were 5 per cent, on car sales,: 10 per cent on tyres and three halfpence per gallon ' oh benzine, but his business was not a profitable one. He had declined an offer m Nelson at £6 per week. Asked by the S.M. if he was willing or wished to become reunited, he answered: "It's no use." Magistrate Maunsell accordingly granted sepai*ation and maintenance orders fixing £2 weekly for ! Gladys, 10/- weekly for each child, £15 back allowance and £3 costs.

A Birthday Gift i

ponsible for any debts contracted by his wife, she ad- J mitted that he had given her, on an