MAU CASE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 213, 3 May 1932, Page 6

MAU CASE

months of the marriage defendant had frequently to go to Mrs. Tommy Mau for company because defendant was frequently out late at night, and that he asked Mrs. Tommy Mau to plead for him. and promised reformatio$. The defendant also asserted that the complainant had expressed a dislike for his two sisters with whom they were living, but there is corroborative evidence that the complainant had grounds for this dislike, and, indeed, the defendant himself admitted that she had." "The defendant further alleges that the complainant was always trying to get him to put his house and cairn her name, but the complainant denies this. She says that she wanted a home of her own, and that she did not want to live with defendant's relatives. Such a desire on the part of a wife is not unnatural, and ap„ pears to me to be justified. Indeed when the complainant secured the defendant's written promise to make over the car to her if she would go back to him, she did not take advantage of it, but appeared to be content to go back to the defendant on his promise- to reform. "Defendant alleges that he is genuinely fond of his wife and child, and that in spite of the charges which he has mafle — none of which he has proved, by the way — he wants thern back. In view of his behaviour, however, it is scarcely to be wondered at that the wife has no longer any faith in his sincerity. His general behaviour and his acts of cruelty are not compatible with the feelings which he should have for his wife." Complainant's Conduct. So far as the complainant's conduct was concerned, the magistrate said that nothing had been proved against her except the intention to perform a certain act when she was desperate, and the fact that she had been drinking in hotels with other young women While this was a highly reprehensible state of affairs, and one which rnight not pass unnoticed by the authorities, it was not in itself sufficient reason for refusing her application. She was entitled to the orders as prayed, on the grounds of persistent cruelty but he would make no finding so far as the allegations of habitual inebriacy were concerned.

Mr. W. A. Carter, for the defendant, said that he had not discussed the amount of possible maintenance with Mau, as quite frankly, he had not expected that the parties would be separated. However, his client was prepared to do the fair thing and make a sufficient allowance for his wife and child. The Magistrate: I am not going to make an order which will enable the wife to spend money on going to drinking parties at hotels. Counsel for Mrs. Mau (Mr. R. Potter). The wife does not ask that sir. The whole evidence is that the only reason why she went out like that is because she was sick of being left alone. The magistrate made an order for 30s a week in respect to the wife and 15s for the child. The question of access to the chld was left to an arrangement between the parties.