DOMESTIC DISAGREEMENT

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 150, 25 February 1916, Page 4

DOMESTIC DISAGREEMENT

Wife's Wrathful Ways A young couple's quarrels were ventilated before Mr K S.M , io the Bukekolie Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Kuby Oswald Bartley, at present residing in fukekohe, applied tor maintenar.ee and a separation order against tor husand, John EJwaid Hartley, a moti.rman, of Devonport Mr ii G R Mason appeared for plaiutitf, and Mr Schnaeur, Auckland, represented defendant The plai ititf depose I that she had living witti her husband at Darby street, U.vonport. Un the 28fi January lait her husband came to the house in the alter,-.oon and told her to pac'i up and clear out, 6nd he al o lntormcd h. r of hia intenti n io have I>r his parent*' home and not tj come back. She remained on n the h ;use until the f Homing Mo .day, anj aa he dif not come back she lift for her parents' tome at Fuktkohe. Before having he had exposed his intention of silling tin fjrmture and giving her half if the proceeds. Defendant had never contributed well towards 4isr support, and she only had the ore change cf cluthin?, which her mother had given her. His salary, together with what he received for working overtim?, averaged about £4 per week, which he wasted io gambling at the racsa and also he was addicted to. drink. He had given her about £1 per week and she had to provide for t':e upkeep of the home and herself on it, For a lengthy | period they had existed on biead, butter, jim and tea. Meat, with one excaptijD, was an unknowu quantity in the house CrosE-exami.ed by Mr Schnauer. complainant denied that her husband gave her £5, a foil be tore she Itft Devonport, or £2 on the day of her departure. He gave her hia wages until six months ago, but since then she had only receive J intermittent sums. Defendant had refused her meal, contending that bread and butter was ample for them, 'l'he oiily clotliing she tcok from the houee included two old shirts and two blouse?, which he had cot purchased. Sonic piesents given to her by friends were also packed with the clothes. She denied having walked home with defendant on ilic Thursday previous to the litial quarrel, and cjdscquently she did not (panel with him en route or oush him on his face, saying, "Get away, you brute." She objected to defendant visiting hia parents home because ha always stayed away till midnight. She would not go there herself because her mother in-law had abusjd her. She had never thrown a cucumber at her husband, or threatened that "she would do for him if she had an axe,' cor had she expressed the wish that she would never see his l--ce again At this stage Mr Schnauer submitted a couple cf undat-d and unsigned letters, plaintilf admitted she had sent to defendant, la one letter she wrote: "1 never want to set eyes on you agair, but you have got to keep me all the same, aa I have had legal advice on the matter. You can send me £2 10s eviry week to tie Fukekohe Pest Office, as 1 want enough to live on whhout mv board, as that will be 15s a week. You are compelled to give me that amount as you kicked your wi.e cut rather than l-ave your mother

Don't forget the money—and Jt'li 10s a week—as ycu have to keep me after kicking me cut." —The second letter contained the following:—"! s:e that you are not man enough to come and take ycur furniture away before 1 go, but you are going to ploy the sneakiny

hound that you are and come when 1 have gene. Well. I have left the p in a nice mess f.ir you and your mother to clean up; even the slops t r i empty. I made things aa duty as possible." l J laintuf, in further reply to Mr Schnauer, admitted posting to dei'eudaat a clipping irom the 'r'ukekohe Times" containing a reference to the case being called un and adjourned at trie last Court, with the WGrda "Ah, Ha," in her hard writing on the bottom of the paper. Croes-examination continued.—She dul not wipe her boots on her husband's sun before she left the house, and she did not jump on his straw hat or tear up hi a photograph a Cid a number of other photographs Mr Schnauer remarked that plaintiff It I t both the chests of drawers in the luuse empty, and took the tilverware, presents, table cloth and a sewing machine away with her

iiy the Magistrate: She had been married about three and a-half years. She was twenty-four years of age now, and her husband was thirty-one

The defendant's father al.o gave evidence

Edward Bartley, architect of Auckland, was called for the de--1 enee, and stated that he was defendant's grandfather. He entered defendant's home together with dtf-.nr!ant on the 31st January, and on goirg through noticed torn-up phutographs and a cruehid straw hat lying on the floor The defendant deposed that he and his wife lived happily Lr twelve months, aftei which relations became somewhat strained through the dilsike hij wife exhibited whenever his mother's n?me was mentioned or whenever he was about to I ave for or returned from Ins mother's home. Ul3 wife was motdy, sometimes appearing happy and unhappy. On the Thursday previous to the Monday when his wife left Auckland she arrived by the 11,15 p.m. boat at Devonport, and th:y were walking home together when air, all of a sudden, said "G•. I away, you brute," and she ran ah:ad. Tie caught up to her arid she said that her temper had got hold ol her. After that she quietened down, and they went home. The fjllowiog day she sent a message £0: him, and when ha arrived home fiie said, "You've been to your old p r opl;s' place," He reph :d, "Y>3 ; for live minutes." She then tuld tim to "Go to and threw a cucumber at him, and hammered him Kith it. When he left the house she called out to him ihat she lever wished to see him asain. He gave her hia wageß right up to the last day she was at Devonport. His wits had all the handling oi the cssh; when he wanted a few shillings he would get it from her. He corroborated his grandtattier's evidence re entering the house, and linding the cheits of drawers emptv, etc. He ade'ed after the row his wife th eatened' him and said that if she hai an axe she would do for him Cues examined by M* Mason, defendant ttated that he was very muca interested in racing, but could nut take an active part in it because he never had any spare cash, His wife had threatened to do f,r him mere than once. He w: s obliged to do his own washing, becau e wheu he asked her to do it ahe growled. His wife had said that if ever they were separated she fcould tlame his mother for it The Magistrate said that it was undisputed that the defendant had p=id over his wages up t? six months ago, but there wa3 a difference as to the proceedngs thereafter. T'i ey had both partaken or the same mtal?, so if she went short her husband had tj do likewise. The plaintiff had failed to substantiate h_r charges, and the case woull bs dismissed

i'iuo box limber ami of friut cases