THE MAN SHE LOVED.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 41, 17 February 1913, Page 2

THE MAN SHE LOVED.

HEARTLESS WIFE. STOEY OF REPEATED DESERTIONS. n - A sad story of misfortuno and connubial unhappiness was related by a man named Thomas Collins Freuin, before Judge Cooper in the Hamilton Supreme Court last week, when he applied for a divorce from bis wife Minnie Catherine Frewin. Mr Steware (Hamilton) represented petitioner. The action, was undefended (reports the Waikato Times). Petitioner said,he was an agent oi the Singer Co., at present residing at Inglewood. He was married on May 3, 1904. After the marriage he and his wife went to Palmerston North, where they lived for some time, afterwards returning to New Plymouth. A child was born of the marriage, and subsequently he went to Blenheim, where his wife joined him. Here they remained for a while, later removing to Wellington and from there to Nelson, where ho took up a serving machine agency. His wife and child remained in Wellington in the meantime, supported by himself. Tilings went badly, and .he joined them in Wellington nine months later, and they went up to Marton together. Matters went on all right for some time, until returning home one Saturday night in the early pait of 1910 ho was poisoned by something he ate and had to be removed to the hospital. Shortly before his discharge his wife rang up the hospital to know when he would be out. On leaving the hospital ho went straight home, but found his wife, child and furniture gone. Ho searched the town for his wife, and was informed by a carrier that he had stored the furniture behind the machine shop. He next met his wife on the Monday at Ohakune, and after a little conversation persuaded her to return wjth him. He took her for a holiday to New Plymouth, where they stayed for three weeks, but his wife was anxious to get back to Marton, so they returned. Housekeeping was re-com-menced, but a few days later she disappeared again. He prosecuted further inquiries and found her at Raetihi, some miles inland from Ohakune. She here told him that if he would resign his position with the Singer Co., and go in for fish and supper rooms, she would return homo. He went back to Marton and resigned his position, bought a horse and trap, and went to Waverley-and negotiated for the purchase of a business. He wired his wife to cortio down, but received no reply. Hb then journeyed up-country and found respondent at Ohakune, where she told-Kim that the best thing he could d'o Uks to get a divorce, as she would 'have nothing more to do with hifii. ■ : 'He pleaded with her to go back for the sake of the boy, but she refused. After this, however, ho went to Inglewood, where he found his wife was staying at the Coffee Palace. Ho again furnished a home and took her into it, but he had only been there’ three days when it caught fire and hb lost everything. He took another house, but had only been in it a short 1 time when he was again poisoned. A little time after this his wife told him she had received a letter from her mother from Nelson, enclosing £2 for her faro down. At her request he allowed her to take the boy away, while he remained in the house for about a month. He wrote a letter to his wife, but receiving, no reply, he concluded that she was up to one of her old games, and sold up. Some time later he received a wire from Taihape from his wife, stating that Eric, the boy, was ill. On arriving at Taihape he was surprised to see the boy running about. Ho decided to again take his wife home, but on the journey down she left the train at Fordell without his knowledge. He went on to Inglewood, taking the boy with him. His wife came to him early in December, 1911, and asked to be taken back again. He told her the best thing she could do was to go away until Christmas, in order to definitely make up her mind as to her intentions. She took the boy with her, but did not return. The next he heard of her was from Taumarunui, when he received another wire stating that the boy was ill. When ho satisfied himself that this was correct he wired to the doctor to give the child his best attention. He went to Taumarunui, arriving there at midnight to his surprise found his wife and child on the - railway platform. He watched his wife for a while without revealing himself, and saw her get on the train. He then went .up and asked her if she would come home, but she said she was going to Hamilton to work in a boardinghouse. He purchased the boy a couple of suits and a pair of boots, which he forwarded on. The next he heard of his wife was in a letter from her from Auckland, in which she stated : “Just a few lines, as I have not heard from you. No doubt you will be satisfied when you get this. I have been thinking that it would be better to tell you that I will never live with you again. I have no love for you now. I have met the man that I love since I loft you. I meant to tell you when I last saw you that I was going to have a child to the man I love. This will be good news for you. You told me I had a fancy man, and so I have. ’Tie is the man that I love, and not you. If you have anything to tell me you can write and I will reply by return. Wo live happily together; it is better than living with you. If you want to , get your divorce I will send you half the money when it is settl-

cd. The father of the child has gone to England.” The letter also mentioned the name of the father of her child.

He replied that if the statement was true ho would sue for a divorce. When at Taumarunui he asked her it there was another man in the case, and she replied in the negative. He heard no more of his wife until the police at Inglewood informed him that they had received a letter to the effect that she was ill and that the boy was living with strangers. Petitioner then went to Hamilton and took the boy away. In a further letter respondent stated : “I think that if you sued for a divorce it would be better for us both. You might be happy yet with someone who appeals to your nature, and if you do tills I will not appear to defend it. I think this would be the best, as this life is no good to you nor to me, and if you are a sensible man you will agree with me.”

On October 24th he received a telegram from Hamilton hearing the words: “Baby fortnight old; waiting. Frewin.” He also received an account for nursing.

Last Christmas Day lie was staying with his sister at New Plymouth, when he was informed that a lady wished to see him outside. He went out and found his wife in a trap. She asked him to take her back, but he refused and she drove away. The following day he went to Inglewood on business, and found Lis wife staying at the Coffee Palace, where she again renewed her request for a reunion, but he again refused, remarking that she would probably only do the same thing again. He added that it seemed to be a family failing, as her sister and her mother had both left their husbands.

Emily Helen Haworth, hoardinghouse keeper, of Hamilton, said respondent applied, in answer to an advertisement, for the position of laundress. This was in July last year. She then went to work at the Waikato Laundry, but came back in September and asked if she could have board for any work she might do. She said she had no money and wished to stay until she got over her illness. Witness took her in and boarded her, in return for a little sewing she did, until she went to a nursing home. After the child was born she returned and said she had neitherl home nor anything else. She also mentioned that the child did not belong to her husband, but to a young man named Marriott, who had gone to England. Priscilla Ann Anstiss, midwifery nurse, said Mrs Frewin was in her home for a time, where a child was born. \ •

Counsel said that respondent laid an information against Arthur Mar.riott, of Taumarunui, for maintenance of her illegitimate child. The warrant had not yet been executed.

j. A decree nisi was granted, with custody of Eric, the child.