MATRIMONY AT MANGAHAO CAMP.

Shannon News, 12 April 1927, Page 3

MATRIMONY AT MANGAHAO CAMP.

PETITION FOR SEPARATION. ON GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DRUNKENNESS Alleging persistent cruelty and drunkenness on the part of her husband, Annie Croxton (Mr. R. M. S Jones) sought an order for separation from Walter John Croxton, carpenter, of Mangahao (Mr. Ongley), together with maintenance. Petitioner stated that she was married in England in July, 1918—a war i marriage—and came to the Dominion in .November of the same year. Their ! domestic relations had been anything but cordial and defendant had taken heavily to drink. Coming home one day he had threatened witness's life and went for a razor. The blade : however, was taken away from him. On the pretence that he wanted a shave, defendant had got it back and as witness considered her life in dan* ger, "she left her home. There were three children of the marriage, th» custody of whom she desired. To Mr. Ongley: She had been ai Mangahao for seven years, her husband being employed there all that time. She denied that the trouble J between herself and her husband had ( arisen in the last two. months owing to witness's familiarity with another man working at the camp. It was no* a case of th e home being broken up through a friend of the family—it had been broken up through drink. Evidence as to defendant's drinking habits was given by Mrs. Jean Taylor (Hastings) and Mrs. Rennie (Mangahao). Cecil Wildbore, x until recently a carpenter at Mangahao, and a friend of the family, said he had known Croxton to indulge in drinking bouts. Defendant, on being questioned on *one occasion by witness, denied having made statements to the effect that witness had been responsible for the breaking up of the home. In fact, he had told witness that he had nothing against him. *To Mr. Ongley: Witness had left Mangahao because he had been accused of making trouble • between the Croxtons. It was purely a coincidence that Mrs. Croxton had left Mangahao on the same day. Mr. Ongley: And a coincidence that you both stayed at the same hotel ? Yes. •

Miv Ongley.'; You and Mrs. Croxton were staying at Colyton with the same people ? —Yes. Is that the way you honoured a pledge to Croxton to keep away ? I felt it my duty to see that she wa? alright. Mrs. „C. Williams said that she had seen much of the trouble between petitioner and her husband, but nothing that one could object to between petitioner and Wildbore —and she often visited the house, entering without knocking. To Mr. Ongley: Although Mrs. Croxton had complained of h,er husband not being nice to her, witness had never seen anything irregular happen before Christmast last. A. R. Rennie described Croxton as a periodical drinker. On one occasion Croxton came to witness's house for a gun he had ,:left there. He was a bit upset and witness advised him to leave it where it was for a few days. The rumour had been spread that Croxton intended to do away with Wildbore and himself.

To Mr. Ongley: The Croxtpns had a nice home and witness was a constant visitor there. Defendant did not drink to excess while in camp at Mangahao.

For the defence, Mr. Ong'ley stated that neither defendant's drinking habits nor alleged cruelty had been the cause of the estrangement, but rather the entry of Wildbore into the home. If defendant was an habitual drunkard, he contended that the whole of Mangahao camp would have known about it. He would have asked his Worship to dismiss th e information but for the fact that it was better to have the whole facts of a case brought out. Defendant wanted his wife to live with him, but realised the unfortunate position they would have to face if they returned to Mangahao. To overcome the. difficulty, however, he was pe -pared to set up his home in Shannon. Defendant, from the witness-box. denied having ever struck his wif<.- except on one occasion In PaJmer3tcn North when he was very annoyed with her and felt like giving her a good shake. On that occasion he had only caught her by the shoulder. As regards the accusations of excessive been on drinking bouts. When he heard the rumour of his wife associating with Wildbore, witness said ho tried to hush the matter up but on coming early from the pictures one evening, he looked in through the door and found his wife with her ('rinking, he admitted having a. glass or two occasionally, but had never and rushed in, and ordered. Wildbore out of the house. Witness denied that his wife was frightened of him.

To Mr. Jones: When Mrs. Croxton was in hospital, witness went to Shannon for a week as he thought he head on Wildbore's shoulder. , "I

couldn't stand any more," said witness home. Mr. Jones: What did you do while there ?—Loafed around. Mr. Jones: And drinking all day ? Witness : No. I read the papers and sat about all the time. Mr. Jones: And when you went would be better off there than at home you would take a couple of bottles with you. Witness: Yes, perhaps three Mr. Jones : One day at the Zoo you left Mrs. Croxton on the excuse that you were going back home to see if the iron was turned off ?—-Yes. And you never came back ?—I did and couldn't find them. You had a few drinks that day ? I bet I never had many. You have slipped away from your wife on several occasions like that 1 —Hasn't she slipped away from me ? Except on the one occasion yot have never been cruel to your wife ? No. She slapped my face once and I never retaliated. Mr. Jones: You seem to have made a habit of drinking more heavily than usual just when the children wortborn ? Witness: Well, a man can't help wetting their heads, can he ? As regards the manner in which his wife performed her domestic duties, witness said he had nothing to i complain of. To Mr. Ongley, witness reiterated that during the last 18 months he had not indulged in any drinking bouts and had endeavoured to hush up the rumour about his wife and Wildbore. P. J. McCondille, foreman, carpenter at Mangahao, said that he had had to send defendant home from work one day two years ago, for being drunk. During the last 6 months Croxton had worked full time except for two days, when witness did not know where he was, and times when he was off sick. His Worship, in intimating that he would reserve decision, state* thatl he would first of all have to con-1 sider whether there had been suffi- J cient cruelty and sufficient evidence! of drunkenness. He could not takej into consideration that defendant! went "on the bust" after the trouble, nor could he take notice of drunken-!. ness years ago. The decision would j rest upon the evidence of what hap-( pened in the last 12 months or more, j