AFTER THE HONEYMOON

NZ Truth, Issue 1198, 15 November 1928, Page 4

AFTER THE HONEYMOON

Pretty Ybuhg Wife's Rainy Day Plans Miscarry

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Hamilton Kepresentative.) A wedding m New Zealand, then a honeymoon trip to England . . . IViih what pleasurable anticipations the young couple nlust have embarked on the voyage. He Was returning to his people m England, taking With him his youthful brids.' She, with the romantic ideas associated with twenty-one- years'- oflife, and putting all her hope m the future, was to sailaway with him to another country. OO

FROM the time Ife , took . her. hand and escorted her aboard the outward--

■bound .vesspl,' until, they returned to New Zen land to set up a home m Waikatq, ."twelve months had elapsed.

. .. . Tney retjii^ned, 'snot as newly.--met lovers, but as niah and wife of a year's standing, and' life had done much to disillusion them. : .

William, HiiKSiird and his "wife. May, were, she <sta,tes, destined to", part.' He had' promised. hi,s mother m England to return- home, at the end of five yt\ai's. ,anU, .as, the twelve months already snent with her .•mother-in-law had been ( anything but pleasant for her, she had decided not to. accompany her husb^ind-if he returned to England. /That; she says, was the reason for her. scheming. to_ save money unknown to heivrYuKba'nd..' ' " '■ ',

In a lj'ot ,cy aboard m their home' she kept her . hoitrci,- , ; a.nd the . secret ' w.is weil. ' kept •'■ for;., .throe' years. • But m July last, fate' took a hand and led, William, to the' treasure..*

From a "bulging .paper' bag; he. took from its 'hiding place ■. He, 'extracted notes 'amounting 'to £331>, / and tlicn explanations,; wore' demanded.

May flew I , to her. nest e);gy : but all she was able" to ; retrieve " A^as.a sheet oi: paper conViiYiiMig: Writing m which the money .. >ms' ( wrapped.. The docunien t she tletetcoylfe'di ibjl't-' WiUtahi "cpnfiscatetl tiiic nion^S'. : ''\. ! . ';' '• • '"'' ' . ■ This- episode in-their otherwise Apparently happy life was revealed ,m, the Hamilton court whem May •made a claim for 'the return of the ■money, but ik reyealeH other sidelights on their life as\vell. When she- appeared m court to tell her stoi-y,- the y<:uhj4' '-wife, jjave- hot' ;ijje I as. 25... Slie. loolcoil loss tiuinVht,v yours, ami. was- wearing- a i>iinn-c.;ulu:'od coat rind a clo.se-ntt:n{, r yreeri hat. Short and Klightly-buiit, she was an attractive flguve,- and she y.ive hoi' evidence clpjii^ij' arid con cisoly. ' .Silo said ■th.-it'.sho .married William on, Ko!> uury 21, 1924. She nail not been iihle to yet on. with, her huyband's people m I3nifl«..nd. and when sno -to id him" that she would not return to Ensland with him if he i-etiirned to. his mot^hei-i he had told. her that she could

please herself, but if she did not he would leave her destitute.

On returning to New Zealand she worked m her husband's bookstall at Mo-Tinsviije, and her husband j Mowed her 25/-' a week for herself and £3 los. for housekeeping- expenses. They boarded at her sister's place, where tliey p;iid 35/- \ a week. Her" sister knew that she was putting, away-- as mifch as -she could for provision for future years when her husband had left her as he had threatened. She had no opportunity of spending money. She later took over a house, and still managed to save something ouch, week.

She also shared m the interest on her husband's fixed deposits, and received thc proceeds from the sale of waste paper.

They later moved. to Frankton, where she worked m another of her husband's bookstalls. Slie received douole pay during holiday times, and she received a bigger allowance when she worked oxtra hours. At Christmas and on her birthday her husband usually gave her £5 as a present. As the result of her frugality she had saved £'339.

In reply to a question from the magistrate as to. why she had . not banked the money, plaintiff said that she already had a post office savings account and she could not keep two She also saved some money for her mother which she placed m the paper bag.

In reply to lawyer .T. Strand, who appeared for the 'husband,' plaintiff said that she had £7.6. m 'her savings bank account. She had opened the account m December, 1926,. 5h0rt1y after she went to Frankton. Her husband knew of this account. Lawyer S trans: And you led him to believe that that was. a|l the money you /.were 'saving? — I do not know -what he ■ believed. ' . • ; *„ ' S.M. : You were 'trying.. ..to conceal your other. savings f''om him? — Tea. .' -Lawyer Strang: When did you first conceive the ■ idea of concealing this money?— When- 1 returned from Englan.d. "■ '-.'. • ■'■■■■■':. And who. put. the , idea into your head? — My sister said it would be a Rood thing 4f I'sav.ed somethinpj, although the idea .was mine. Didn't you like, your husband's people ?^N6." '.•''■ "■; " ,

Did they treat- you badly? — They ignored ltier

Your husband, 'wanted ■ to take yo.u back -to "England with him?— No. He said . I could- pleasa myself.

; Wh'en' Lav/yer Strang asked what. had. -been the cause of William discovering the money after such a long time, plaintiff said that' he had always been suspicious. She very seldom left him alone, m the house with the money. She usually took" the money to the book stall m. a dress basket.

Counsel: And when your husband finally discovered the nest egg, was there not a document with it?—^Yes.

What did the document contain? — It stated that the money was my own and out of my own savings.

She had intended to have a legal document drawn up, as her intention was to leave 'the money to her mother. She admitted that she had not let her husband see the document and had thrown it m the fire.

Lawyer Strang: I suppose your •husband asked you where this money, came from? — No, all he said was: "If you want it, sue for it." Finally, m. a state of confusion, I told him it was my mother's money. .

Cross-examined further, plaintiff ddmitted that when she left Morrlns-

:yill,e shcliad approximately £100 unknown to her lpsband. Her mother had taken, the', money to Franlrton ' f or her. Her husband had every intention of going to England when his- lease was up,« she said. He was always saying that he Was gding to leave her. .".Lawyer Strung: ".If you had' £loo >yhen. you left" AJorrinsville, you have saved £219, plus £76— or £295 since the. end of .November, 1926. ■■: ■ ■ . Plaintiff: limust have. iCpunsel; That is pr.actically .£ 15 a month you, have saved for nineteen months. . • ■ , • . . ;S.M.:. Nearly £4 a week. •Lawyer Strang: Do you seriously [ state that you saved nearly, £4 a .week out of your .allowance?— N0 ,.1 don't. S.M.: Then how did you get it? — I saved '£339 m four years. S.M. : • You didn' t tell me that. Under . cross-examination, Sarah Ann Simms, plaintiff's sister, said that defendant was "not the decent man he was before he went to England." ■ S.M.: And what has he done since? — You don't know what he is. Counsel: That is what we are trying to find out.

Witness: The 'Mr; Haggard you know is not the Mr. Haggard at home.

, La wyer Strang: What does he do? Does, he bite his wife? — No., 'but there are more -ways of killing 'a pig than knifing it." ' ' " ' ' '

Counsel: Yes', but what wrong has he done to put the whole family against him?— He is the most contemptible man- 1 know.

. S.M. Apparently he was an angel once. He is now a fallen angel. What are. his sins?

Witness replied that after her sister had 'been standing at the stall all day he would complain at the way she had done her work, and he grumbled if he thought that sales' had not been what he thought they should have- been.

When Lawyer Strang asked if plaintiff had access tc the cash-box, witness became indignant. '''■-,

"We have always been brought up to know what is our own," she replied.

Plaintiff's mother, Sarah Ann Johnson, an elderly woman with a Yorkshire accent, said that she had liVed

with- her daughter and son-in-law tor thiee years until recently. There were frequent rows m the house, she said. In fact, they were always at it. >" Haggard showed his . wiCe no iove, affection or consideration. The fact that' he kept her well supplied with money was the- only ■ comman.dablo thing about him. , -.•-..■■

- At the conclusion of plaintiff's case the magistrate said that it was a pity that the parties; who were practically on' the threshold of life with the means available of making' themselves comfortable and happy, could aiot have .settled the matter amicably.

, If they kept awa*y from their relatives there was no reason why they should not agree, unless it was the wife's intention to leave her husband and remain away for three years m order to institute divorce proceedings.

The husband would probably not consent to this course, however, as he wanted to take his wife for a trip to England.

Lawyer Strang raised a non-suit point, and on .this his worship said that he would give a. written decision.

In giving reserved decision on the non-suit point, the magistrate, after reviewing the evidence, said that it would appear that immediately on her return to New Zealand after . the honeymoon the AVife commenced tc save the secret hoard out of moneys which came into her hands.. She was abetted m this cause by her rnothpr her sister, and two brothers.

The deception was successfully maintained for over three years. His worship said that the law had long been settled on the point that the savings of the wife out of money given to her by her husband for household expenses belonged to the husband. There were also several English authorities which showed that moneys saved by the wife out of the profits of the husband's business belonged to the husband.

However, he could find no authority for the contention that the wife's wages earned by her m her husband's business and paid to her as such were not her separate property.

What proportion of the secret hoard belonged to the wife he was unable to say until he had heard the defendant's case. . •

The non -suit point was dismissed and the case was adjourned sine die.