ALLEGED WIFE DESERTION

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 85, 6 May 1909, Page 4

ALLEGED WIFE DESERTION

TUB SCHWAMM CASE. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, before Mr. H. S. FitzlierbcM, S.M., the ease in which Annie Undine Sehwaium charged her husband, Harold Schwaimn, with having unlawfully deserted her, and also with having failed to provide her with adequate means of support, she being a person within the meaning of the Destitute Persons Act, was continued.

Mr. Quilliam appeared for the complainant and Mr. C. H. Weston for the defendant.

Dr. Ernest Faber Fookcs stated he had attended Mrs. Schwamm. Her physical condition precluded the possibility of her doing laborious work of any kind without it having an eil'ect on her health.

His Worship stated that he was quite satisfied that the woman could not work. Annie Undine Schwamm, the com-„ plainant, then went into the witnessbox, and deposed that she and her husband did not get on well together. She had always looked after him as a wife should do. She could not remember any occasion on which she had not done so. She did not remember receiving any money from her husband while he was in Auckland, which money she spent on something e lse. It was' not a fact that on leaving Kiripaka her husband went ahead of her with some stuff to make a home for her, and that she took advantage of this to get away from him. While at Hawera she had never left her husband without his consent. She could I not sav how long she was away from her husband during the time they were living at Hawera. She did not stay at the Jubilee Board'mghouse in New Plymouth for three weeks'. She stayed only one night during Band Contest week in Now Plymouth. Her sister and mother used to give her sums of money, with which she paid her expenses while apart from her husband. Her brothers had also given her sums of money. Her husband' left her at llawera. and witness sold the furniture, as he did not return. The necessity for money had only arisen since she left Mr. Dobbin's. This was Shout two months ago. She made no attempt to find out where her husband was until she went to the pnttr-c. This was on 23rd March, 1909. During the two years her husband was away she made no attempt to get money from him.

Mr. Weston submitted that before his Worship could have any jurisdiction to make an order, counsel for complainant must prove that the defendant had knowledge that his wife was in need of money. He would call evidence to show that the couple led a "cat and dog" life, due entirely to the complainant. The defendant, Harold Sehwamm, Btatcd that he was a laborer. When arrested in Canterbury he was working in a threshing-mill. He earned eight shillings a day in fine weather. When he married complainant at Puniho she was living away from her parents. They lived at Puniho for three months. His wife was guilty of extravagance, and ran him into debt. He left Puniho to try and better himself. He went to Auckland, as lie and his' wife could not agree. He was in the King Country when he heard that she wanted to come back to him. He sent for her a few months later, because he heard she had said that she would be better if he took her back. He sent his wife her passagemoney, but she did not arrive until two months later. He met her at Onchnnga, and they left for Whangarei the same day. They lived with his aunt at Kiripaka for about six weeks'. He went to Rotorua to work, and left'his wife at Mercer. He sent her money to join him, but she wrote to say that she was going home. He had never asked her to walk through the King Country with him. it was untrue that he had pawned her wedding-ring and shoes in Auckland. He came back to his wife again and lived at Fitzroy for six weeks, after which he went lo Ilawera. At Ilawera his wife did not look after him well, being away from home more than half the time without his leave. She did not keep the house tidy, and he had to cook his own meals and do his own washing. About two days before he left Hawcra she was staying with her sister. Witness went to ask her if she was coming home, and she replied "No." Witness, continuing, said lie told her she could have the house and furniture, as she was "off'." Witness had never assaulted his wife, and was not drinking in the hotels in Ilawera on the occasion she had mentioned.

To Mr. Quilliam: lie thought his wife was able to earn her own living while lie was away. Since leaving his wife he- had never lived under a false name. He had never called his wife any had names. The sum of £l3 was found upon him when arrested. To Mr. West on: He had corresponded with his relations' while he had been away.

Patrick Kelly, residing at Regentstreet. Ilawera, stated that he remembered the Sehwamms. They were tenants of his while living in Ilawera, and occupied a cottage next to his. M''. Sehwamm was often away, sometimes for two or three weeks. Sehwamm used to do his own washing on Saturday afternoons, and also to cook his own meals. Sometimes Sehwamm went out for his meals', and sometimes had his meals at witness's house. Witness always found Sehwamm an honest man. William John Jeffries, contractor, residing at Waitara Road, said that complainant was his niece, and defendant his wife's brother. He knew defendant was living apart from his wife. While they were apart complainant told him that if She knew where her husband was she would go back to him. Witness got his wife to write to defendant, who replied that he would take his wife back. Defendant sent some money for his wife, who did not go to him for some time. Witness paid complainant's faro to Auckland, lie did not hear her making any complaint regarding shortage of money. She did not complain to witness on her return from Auckland regarding her husband's treatment. When defendant eamc back he took a house at Fitzroy and then went to Ilawera. Complainant then came lo New Plymouth where witness saw her. She stayed at the Jubilee boardinghousc for two or three weeks. Witness's wife had been corresponding with defendant since he left Ilawera.

James Jury, a labourer, stated that his wife was Mrs Sehwainin's aunt. Mi's Sehwamm stayed at his place for about 0 days until witness asked her to leave. This concluded the evidence for the defence.

Mr Quilliam having replied to Mr. Weston's legal argument, asked his Worship to make an order for the maintenance of the complainant and also that he exercise the powers conferred upon him by Statute, and send the defendant to prison for a period. , His Worship said he had come to the conclusion that defendant was guilty of both charges. He considered defendant earned all average wage of £2 a week, and his wife was entitled to half of this. On the charge of having failed to provide sufficient maintenance for her support defendant would be convicted and an order made that he should pay the sum of £\ per week towards the support of his wife, in addition to the expenses oi bringing him back lo New Plymouth from Rakaia where he was arrested, and legal costs £2. He did not think that sending defendant to goal would do any good, as while ho was there he would not be able to support his wife.