WAS SHE GIVEN TOO MUCH ROPE?

NZ Truth, Issue 1187, 30 August 1928, Page 9

WAS SHE GIVEN TOO MUCH ROPE?

Undoubtedly Marjories Love For Refrigerating Engineer Grew Gold

Co-respondent Holds That Husband Countenanced His Wife's Behavior

CANOODLED IN COTTAGE AND FLIRTED IN FLAT (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) " Hugh Dobbie, a refrigerating engineer, who spent a considerable time away from home on the business of his firm, left his wife m March of this year when he made certain discoveries concerning her conduct. Subsequently, citations of divorce proceedings Were filed by Dobbie against his Wife, Marjorie Home Dobbie (nee Morrison) , whom he married at SL Mark's, Remuera, m 1912, giving Walter Hislop as the corespondent and claiming £750 damages from him. The petition was not proceeded with.

THE allegations against Hislop were that he and Mrs. Dobbie had spent week-ends m a cottage at Waiwera; also that they had misconducted themselves on occasions at the corespondent's flat and at the flat where Mrs. Dobbie was then living. In his reply to the allegations of misconduct, Hislop declared that the petitioner had literally given his wife and the co-respondent too much rope — that he had requested Hislop to take his wife to entertainments, to seek her society and even knew that he was buying her presents of clothes and paying some of the bills. What the reply really amounted to was that Hislop alleged he had been thrown into the company of Mrs. Dobbie with the approval, if not the actual connivance, of the husband. Such was the tenor of the corespondent's answer to the petitioner's charges. However, the petition was never proceeded Avith. Those who wondered what had transpired over the rupture m the Dobbie household would have been duly enlightened had they been m attendance at the Auckland Maintenance Court last Friday, when Magistrate Levin presided. Lawyer Fleming was present for Dobbie and Lawyer W. D. Anderson for Mrs. Dobbie, who was making application for separation and maintenance, with guardianship of the two children. Outlining some of the facts, Lawyer Anderson said there wera. one 'or two rather peculiar features about the case. Dobbie, he explained, left his wife on account of her misconduct; he had commenced divorce proceedings; had gone so far and then compromised with

the co-respondent for a certain sum of money. "The vital question," announced Lawyer Anderson, "is whether the parties are living together now." Legally, he contended, there was desertion. Although the wife had been m receipt of £2 10s. a week, since the matter had been more or less settled, this was not sufficient. The laWyer called Mrs. Dobbie, who looked quite young, distinctly goodlooking, slim and smartly costumed, topped off with a small hat of fashionable red. Her husband, she stated, left her m March and later commenced certain proceedings m the Supreme Court, since which date they had not lived together. She had received regular maintenance to the tune of £2 10s. a'week, but this was not sufficient. "What do you consider necessary?" asked Lawyer Anderson. The wife replied: "£4 a -week." She Avent on to say that her husband was m receipt of a salary of £7 a week and earned extra money by evening work. He was away from home for the greater part, of the year and when he was absent for his firm he had all his expenses paid. She concluded: "I can't say if he's iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJiiiiiiiiiitniiiiiinimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiimiiiiiiiiiiin

able to give me more, but it's necessary I to. run the house." To Lawyer Fleming, the wife replied I that her husband had made himself responsible for the rates, etc., but he paid those items out of what he had i put away. "You probably don't know what isi put away," said Lawyer Fleming. "To a certain extent, I do," was the answer. When Hugh Dobbie was called, he proved to be a man looking several 1

years older than his smart, slim wife, having what the gentle sex term a "nice speaking voice." At some length he explained to the court his financial arrangements and obligations, to make it clear that when he had paid his wife £2 10s. and mortgage dues, rates, insurance, telephone, electric light, etc., he had not much , left over. "I can't see my way to improve on my offer," he concluded. Holding up a sheaf of receipted bills m his hand, Lawyer Fleming enumerated some of .the items which Dobbie had settled: Courts £21; solicitors -who had formerly handled his case, £9 Bs. 6d.; Dr. Wilkin, £10; etc. That bundle disposed of, lawyer held up another lot with the statement that these had yet to be settled. "I am .quite willing to continue to 'provide," said Dobbie, "but I can't pay I more and keep the house going at the 1 same time." What he had m the bank was "about cut out." If the house could be sold, he might be able to pay "a bit more." Magistrate Levin contributed a few words, remarking: "I can't see any other light on the subject; it certainly is not a great amount . . . the misfortune is having tl\e house on his hands." Further, said the bench, there should be no difficulty about Dobbie seeing his children; he was doing his best. Finally, all parties agreed to let the case stand • down until . September 7. that the legal men might confer, while the magistrate, who quite seemed to regret the publicity which these proceedings entailed, observed: "It is a case which calls for private settlement rather than otherwise." a llllllllllllHlllllHtllllllllllllllllllllllllllllM