HER DAY OF RECKONING

NZ Truth, Issue 1195, 25 October 1928, Page 4

HER DAY OF RECKONING

Woman Makes Full Payment For Her Unfaithfulness (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Dunedin Representative.) ' For a woman who chooses to besmirch the golden characters of her marriage vows, violate the natural bonds of "motherhood and scatter to the four winds a husband's affections and the comforts of a home— all for the sake of another man's company— the world can be cold and relentless.

ETHEL, ROSE JOSEPHSON has found this to be so. In October, 1925, she left her home and three children to live with another man, but a few months- ago Fate intervened and the dark waters: of the Waipori River claimed her illicit lover, leaving the woman to drain the full dregs of their shame from the hands' of an inexorable husband and an un pi tying magistrate. " > In. other words —having made her • bed, thereupon must Ethel Rose Josephson lie; at all events, /until such time as her claim against her husband for maintenance can be Instituted under the Destitute Persons Act, .. If ever the bitter cup of humiliation was forced upon the lips of a wayward wife, ■ Ethel , Josephson received -it. m full draught when she approached Magistrate Bundle at ' the Dunedin Maintenance • Court last -week asking that." her husband, Martin Douglas Josephson, an electrical engineer employed by the. City Council, be ordered to pay her maintenance. The" court looks askance upon the woman who perforce must, admit that she : has : flagrantly desecrated the sacred bonds .• of .matrimony, and even though her conscience be writhing^ under the toils of repentance and remorse, pity cannot divert the clear course of justice. Broken In health and obviously ': m a state of mental/distress, Mrs.. Josephson was assisted to a seat inthe court-room by a matron of ' the Salvation Army. . She sat, a' pitiable figure—gasping and trembling as though on the verge of complete . col- : . " : lapse. I" _ "*"

a Mrs. Jackson, at 152, Maitland Street, And are you paying anything for board?-^— I can't, And she isn't expecting it?—lsn't she? I owe her four pounds now. .' Did you work while with Roberts m these northern places?—l worked for him. > * What; doing?— Keeping house, You admit , that you have done wrong by your husband? — Well, he has done wrong by me. If you left your husband because of his'cruelty, • how is it he has looked after the children so thoroughly? —My husband does more for.the children than when .I was home. -When you left your husband, what was. the amount of debt you bequeathed to -: him?---Not vmore than ten pounds. .If he says .it: > was more .like eighty pounds, it.is.'a lie?— Yes., Did you live m a house with a woman 'narnedv• Jarrard next door to your husband's home m Jackson Street, Kaikorai ?—Yes. Is it correct that when you went to the. Anderson's Bay School the eldest boy told you .that before you could speak to them you must see his father? —No, that is not correct. But I know what he did say. . ' Did you save any money when you were with Roberts ?—Enough to come down here. Were you living with Roberts at the;time he was drowned? —No, I had ' left him months before. I wanted to show Josephson that 1 could .earn an honest living, Have;you. saved any money? — Very "■ ' '■■ ■.' ' ; ■" little, "~! j "How much have

; A; s Lawyer Claude White approached to assist her through her evidence, the wo-

■ RECOMPENSE '

you now?" After 8 veering .round the 9 question, complain- I ant finally summed I un her financial I

man became rather more composed, j possessions at "five shillings." In a faltering voice, complainant At the. conclusion of her ordeal, Mrs. claimed the. chill companionship of Josephson was taken oufrside and thus impoverishment as the final reward of was spared the exacting castigations her three years' absence from her hus- from her stern little husband m the band and children. It was on account witness-box. of defendant's cruelty that she had de- He earned £6/5/- per week as an cided to leave him. electrical engineer m the employ of the Eighteen -months aero she asked her City Council, which billet he had oc- ' husband' to receive her back to the ciipied for the past 17 years, home, but, she alleged,.. he had referred "I shall never forget it," he stated her .to. his .lawyer. She' was., now al- solemnly, when asked to relate what most penniless, under medical treat- happened at his home on October 18, ment and a burden upon a woman 1925. "I 'was on double-watch and named Mrs. Jackson, who , had be- understood that my wife had gone to friended her. , her sister's at St. Kilda for tea. I Counsel produced medical certifi- came m and had my tea and went to cates. to say that complainant had bed . . . I got up at a quarter to .undergone several serious operations, ten and went to work, thinking my With further surgical attention.'-, fjend^i w;ife would return." y .'" ing. She was not' in a fit condition to -4-l)efendant then explained how there work, and rest was essential'^.tp he* Tiadibeen no appearance of his wife, physical well-being. >•'.';,•,*; t and subsequently he discovered that On behalf of the" defendant. she had journeyed to Central Otaga as J Lawyer Anderson rose to release . "Seated . by his counsel's crossa gruelling cross-examination examination. .. ■■.■■■■ i which at times seemed to dumb- After paying what amounted to £2 found the unfortunate woman, a week for his children at Anderson's .though consideration was shown Bny. and another- £2 a week on his ''■' for her state of -health. dwelling, the remainder of his wages >.-, • , /. ■■■::■>. defendant needed- for his own support. Asked to mention any person who W *'■ j j. ii'l^-xi * , • ,* « could testify to instances of her hus- . P o l^ ndant < ,^ t J ma *S a }W l"! ife band's alleged cruelty, witness re- '«" n " , " n -? a^L e er a Y lth " debtS tot f h ™ fusfed to give any name, but she stead- £i°°' C °"l l ' l i S^ d °? 00 ™"*" 8 fastly asserted that she had a witness. V ,"Z J£ th^„ abo f u *" Y°, V ?**??**• Counsel: In October, 1925, when you *fe e h^ 11 ! f 2™, st ° ck1 "^ were living with your husband m the S-lf n moU^^ 1 i^.f 3 /i 0/ '* / * house m Jackson Street, did you leave S da l° d }$*** lob1 obl XK a * 10 "f''- f,F home with a man named .W. B . »?W" left with only .£2- m the banlcRoberts m a taxi driven by a man Josephson's implacable attitude tonamed Owens, and $ro to Central wards; n *s wife brought him to a point Otago? ■ '<• of order as Lawyer White opened his Witness (after hesitation) : Yes, but cross-examination. I. had a friend with me.. , '<T)o you care who keeps your wife?" Bench: Who was the other person? counsel asked. "No/ with a touch of —My sister and a . ' *• ' ■ V . . ;' contempt.

inena. Requested by the magistrate to give the third person's name witness claim-

AWAKENING

"Who lives m your house?" was the next question. '"I dp!" witness threw back, almost

ea to nave lorgotten. Counsel: Did you ever come. back to your home? — Yes, the next day. And did you stay,? — No, I went straight away again. Why? — I was frightened of my husband. ■".■.' Magistrate: Did you go away with Roberts?— No. He was m town three weeks after I left. Counsel: And where you go? — I went back to Central Otago. And when did you join Roberts? — (Mrs. Josephson's . reply was Inaudible). Will you say it is untrue, if a man named Tasker, of Wanganui, .who worked with Roberts, says that he was taken into a house by Roberts and you were introduced ■ to him as Mrs. Roberts?~Never . as his wife. Did you not live m the same house as Roberts, m Nibbett Street and also m London Street? — (No answer). Roberts was drowned some months ago in' the Waipori River and is that not why you are making this application m court to-day?— No. If. Roberts had lived, would you have been here?— Yes. -My husband .'got my; house by fraud. i It was m your joint names, and do you remember getting, a sum of money from him m settlement since you- left him?— l got £25; \ and signed the papers without knowing what ' they were about. Have .you ever complained of the sum being inadequate?:— (Again no answer). Did you ever take Roberts with you to see the two children at the Anderson's Bay School?— He came up one day with me. ' Was that a, proper thing to do? — (Silence). Where are you living now?— With

" : as a snarl, ' "Don't speak to me like that!" snapped out counsel, indignantly, "speak more respectfully." This admonition his worship endorsed. Counsel: How many rooms m your house ■?— Six, and I live there alone. To the suggestion that he might rent portion of the house or let rooms, defendant contended: that it ; was hard to get reliable tenant^ or boarders. He denied that eighteen months ago he had refused to take his wife back when she pleaded reinstatement to the home. It was m September of last year when she had called at the house because the. man with whom she was then living had got into trouble and was facing a charge; Witness was not going to take back to his children any woman who had disgraced herself as had the complainant. ' , . ■ Counsel : You don't want your wife back, nor do you "want to keep her. So you are prepared to let the State keep her?— Her people can keep her; her .father is. living. Asked by 'counsel, why, if the wife's infidelity had been so barefaced, defendant had not availed himself of the divorce court, the reply was to the effect, that reliable evidence had only recently come to hand. "Besides,"' Josephson concluded before leaving the box, "I did not want the stigma of divorce to face the children, but now it has got to come out." With the remark that there was no question but that the wife had brought her misfortunes upon herself, and until her circumstances were such that proceedings could be brought under the Destitute Persons Act there was no legal obligation for the husband to support her/ His worship dismissed the application. ".._-.•