MARRIAGE A FAILURE

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 7, Issue 359, 12 March 1918, Page 2

MARRIAGE A FAILURE

Separation Deed Sequel

At the Pukekohe Magistrate's Court last Thursday before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., the martial misfit of two ex-residents of Mauku was once more laid bare when Alfred William Wright, a poultry farmer, now carrying on his occupation at Manurewa, was charged with failing to maintain his wife, Jane, who claimed a maintenance order of 30s per week. Mr H. G. R. Mason represented " wifey" and Mr R. A. Singer looked after "hubby's" interests.

Mr Mason, in outlining the case, explained that the defendant led his blushing bride to the altar at Mauku as far back as 1900, but after nine years of more or less matrimonial discord, viz., in September, 1909, Alfred and his " Missus" agreed to go their devious ways, a deed of separation being entered into and "wifey" being paid £350 in hard cash, a child of the marriage, a boy then eight years of age, being left in her custody. With tfte £350 and an additional £SO, a house with 2£ acres of land at Patumahoe was purchased and the lady essayed poultry farming on her own account but apparently with disastrous results for she gradually lost her money. In April, 1914, the position became so acute that Mrs Wright invoked the assistance of Mr Frazar, S.M., to grant an order against her husband foi her maintenance and also for the maintenance of their son but the Magistrate declined, in view of the separation deed and the fact that he was not convinced that the lady was destitute within the meaning of the Destitute Persons Act, to make Alfred part up on her account although he ordered him to pay 12s fid towards the boy's keep until he reached the age of 16 years. However, it was Mr Mason's contention that the lady was now "on the rocks," the contribution for the boy having ceased when he became 16 years of age last August. "The question (said Mr Mason in conclusion) is whether the husband is to maintain his wife or whether she is to become a charge on the community." During Mr Mason's recital of the lady's misfortunes she occasionally interrupted and in one instance : sought to remonstrate with Mr Singer for some interjection he 1 made whereupon Mr Singer heatedly '■ remarked " I am not going to bandy ! words with you, Mrs Wright," A hint was also made by Mr Mason that an offer of money had been forthcoming on behalf of the husband if his wife would divorce him.

Mr Singer promptly objected, saying what had been done in that way was " without prejudice." The Magistrate ruled that reference to such contingency was not relevant although he remarked that perhaps a divorce would be the best solution of the matter. Plaintiff then went into the witness box and corroborated her solicitor's statements. Asked by the Magistrate how old she was she dis played the usual womanly reluctance to disclose her age ard evasingly replied " Under 50." Pressed by the Magistrate she admitted she had seen 47 summers.

Proceeding the plaintiff said that subsequent to the separation in addition to poultry-farming at Patumahoe she took boarders into her house, the school-teachers among others stopping with her. She, however, gradually got into debt, including an overdraft at the bank ef £IOO and a storekeeper's bill for £6l. These she met by mortgaging the propertv for £2OO. In February of last year she was forced to sell her home for £350, thus losing £SO on it. Out of that sum she paid off the mortgage of £2OO and also £4O of debts. That left her with £llO She remained on at the house as a tenant, paying 7s 6d a week as rent, until last November when she removed to Buckland where she now was. She was paying 15s a week rent at Buckland. She now only had a cow and a calf, and some 30 to 40 fowls, the latter of which were not at present laying. The cow had been milking for seven months and was at present only responsible for producing 31bs of butter per week Her sole remaining money was about five shillings. Her health throughout/ had been very bad. She suffered from bronchitis and rheumatism.

Cross-examined by Mr Binger, the plaintiff stated that her son lived with her and was earning £1 per week. She had £8 or £9 at home belonging to the boy she was keeping it for clothes for him. Bhe had had a business training in England as a dressmaker but had not attempted to follow that occupation after the separation owing to her defective evesight. Mr Singer: Why, since poultry farming did not pay, did you not take up dressmaking ? Plaintiff: Why should I when my husband is in a good position.

Mr Singer: So that is your attitude !

The plaintiff went on to laconically bemoan that her poultry keeping proved disastrous One season, she said, 287 chickens were hatched and the rats took over 70 in one night. In reply to Mr Singer she admitted she had never attempted to get a situation as a housekeeper.

The Magistrate remarked that it was apparent that the plaintiff's temperament was the source of trouble an'l temperament arose from temper. Mr Binger agreed with the Magistrate and mentioned that the plaintiff lost her school-teacher boarders at Tatumahoe as the result of bringing a charge of assault in October, 191f>, against the headmaster of M iuku tor punishing her son, which charge was dismissed by the Magistrate (Mr Frazer). I)r Wake gave evidence to the effect that the plaintiff's general health was good hut she had highly neurotic tendencies. By the Magistrate: She would be able to do housework or dressmaking. Mr Singer contended that it was

not a case in which an order maintenance should be made

plaintiff was not a destitute within the meaning of the Destitute Persons Act. The Act, he said, W* specially provided that unless there f was actual destitution the Court I ****, should not go behind a deed_ of separation. Instead of attempting * to secure work or a situation the W£ plaintiff had pandered to her desire ML to adhere to her present mode of liv- jj " ing in the hope of getting an order « against her husband. j <l magistrate's bulino y His Worship stated that thiplaintiff had not convinced hus tfil| was not able to work or; was l|pi- V tute. She had never trie! to sMure l any means of maintenance thioing | she could come on her misbqplto support her. He therefotowould not make any order but w«4d not allow costs. ' *^*%