DOMESTIC UNHAPPINESS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81890, 17 November 1906, Page 2

DOMESTIC UNHAPPINESS.

A WAITARA CASE. ■ At the New Plymouth S.M. Court, on Friday, before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M., the case recently adjourned from Waitara, in which Emma*~Eliza both Wilson made application for a separation order against her husband, Frederick Charles Wilson, was heard. Complainant also made ap plication for maintenance from her husband for herself and child. The grounds for the applications were persistent cruelty and failure to maintain.

Mr C. 11. Weston (instructed by Mr Sandilands, of Feilding) appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Hutchens on behalf of file defendant. The parties have for some time reided at the Bridge Hotel, Waitara, with defendant's mother. Complainant's evidence, taken at Waitara, was to the effect that she was most unhappy with her present lot. She staled that she had been treated with cruelty, and wilful neglect, also her child. The evidence was lengthy, and alleged a lamentable condition of affairs. Anthony Johnstone, late porter at the Bridge Hotel, Waitara, was called. He stated that about six months ago defendant entered the kitchen

and asked his wife to' go to the play. She refused, as she said she knew her husband wanted money from her. The night was also too cold. Defendant used bad language towards his wife, and threatened to throw the lamp over her. Witness wv.s the only other person in the loom. Defendant and his wife often had differences. She complained of her husband being a loafer. They often argued the point over nursing the babv. Saw "defendant nursing the baby once or twice. Did not think he was kindly disposed towards his wife. Often when they were 'rowing' defendant used bad language. Defendant drank a little. Saw him the worse for drink sevcra. times. One day plaintiff lightly smacked the child. Defendant rushed in and knocked his wife against th- table- A fighi commenced, and witness rushed in and separated them. Afterwards saw complainant crying. An attempt had been made to prevent witness giving evidence, and he had written a letter to 'Messrs Wesloa and Weston stating that he knew nothing of the because he was afraid. Defendant had written the letter and witness had copied the words. When proceeding to post the letter, defendant came out and shook witness and dragged him to the post office, where the letter was posted. Witnesss left the hotel next day as lie was afraid defendant wbuld lull him.

Cross-examined by Mr Hutchen, witness said he had discussed the case with complainant, but Had not discussed the evidence with her, Mrs M. Wilson, defendant's mo tlier, s>iited defendant was ;i cripple. W as acquainted with complainant before her marriage. Complainant wiote to witness from Feilding requesting the loan of ,£SO lor dctendant. Had given defendant and complainant money several times subsequently, j Witness later 011 invited complainant to come and live with tier. There had been slight differences between the coupie, but not, in witness opinion, of a seiious nature. On me who.e, considered complainant had little tu find fault with,

The defendant, F. Wilson, said he , had provided his wife with a furnished home at t ceding, paying account uut of money earned at his trade as a tailor, and by contra money. Had paid ali household accounts except tluee at the last. Sums of the furniture was given as presents. Had agreed to pay off furniture, etc., in muntiily instalment-, but Could not meet the payments, and eventually went bankrupt. On the night after going to Waitara, lie had a slight difference with his wife. Did not threaten her in any way. It was not true that he threatened to throw a lamp over his wife. On one occasion, when complainant slapped him on the lace, he did n H handle her roughly, merely holding her by tin' wiis'. Did not handle complainant roughly on the occasion of her beating the child. Complainant afterwards went to Feilding, where \yi,tri:"3 had tried to get wort > jul (A, was handed in shaving defendant's Receipts and expenditure during his stay in Waitara.) Never used any violence towards Johnstone to induce him to write to Weston and Weston. In cross-examination, defendant stated he had not kept a strict statement of accounts. Diu not look on his wife as a little "savings' bank. Never threatened his wife with a gun. Denied that lie was in the- habit of drinking. Had always Tjeen anxious 10 get a It line and suppoil e m piainailt' eonUoilabiy. Mis Worship reserved his decision, de-iting- to review the evidence.