MARITAL AMENITIES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 262, 15 March 1911, Page 7

MARITAL AMENITIES

I O'DRISCOLL v. O'DRISCOLL. The time of the local S.M. Court was occupied for a couple of hours yesterday afternoon in ventilating the marital amenities of Mary Jane and Jeremiah O'Driseoll, wife's claim for maintenance and for a separation order. Mr. 11. S. Fitzherbert was the presiding magistrate. Mr. G. Grey appeared for complainant, the defendant conducting his own case. Mary Jane O'Driseoll deposed that she was the wife of the defendant, and was at present residing at the corner of Dawson and St. Aubyn streets. In 1906, she went, with her husband's consent, for a trip to Australia to meet some relations, who were theatrical people. Her husband paid for her saloon return fare, and her brother, Mr. J. J. Stagpoole, gave her .£5 pocket money. The ticket was available for three months. Slie, however, got it extended, and stopped about three 1 weeks over the time. During her absence she did not correspond with her husband, but did with her son, aged 20, who resided with his father. While in Australia she received no intimation that her husband was dissatisfied with her lengthy absence. She returned to New Plymouth early in the morning, her husband being in bed. She woke him up. He asked her why she had not stayed where she had been during the past three months, and swore at her. He then got up and cooked enough breakfast for "Bert" and himself, but not for her. She had to cook her own meals. She remained in the same house from October, 1906, to September, 1907, but they did not speak. vShe did the work, but Mr. O'Driseoll would not let her cook his meals. One night when she cooked his tea he threw it out. Many times she had been frightened to remain by herself. In May, 1907, she received a letter from Messrs, Malone, McVeagh,, and Johnstone, saying that Mr. O'Driseoll was about to leave for a trip to Ireland, etc., and would allow her £1 per week. He did not consult her about his trip, but advertised and sold the furniture, and also advertised that he would not be responsible for any'debts. When he returned from England he built a house opposite where she was living. He still continued to allow her £4 fis 8d a month, until November, 1910, when the payment ceased. During his absence witness resided with her brother until she saved up enough money to buy furniture. She then rented a house at 12s 6d a week. She also let rooms and taught dancing to augment her income. On January 24th, 1911, she received a letter from defendant's solicitors, in which he made a conditional offer to take her back on her apologising for her conduct in Australia. So far as she knew she had nothing to apologise for. During the time she lived with Mr. O'Driseoll as his wife, as long as everything was done as he liked, things were all right, otherwise there was trouble. Once when he was smoking in the dining room, which she .had just cleaned, she mildly protested. He replied that he could get a woman at 5s per week to do the work she was doing, and if she did not like it she could go. In giving evidence of defendant's means,, witness siid he owned the freehold of the Royal Hotel in Hawcra, which brought in £6 10s per week. He also owned a section and a five-roomed house in St. Aubyn street, and the racehorses Waitapu and Sinn Fein. He lived on the rent of the hotel, for his horses did not win much. In reply to defendant, witness denied that defendant had given her £5 to spend on her trip. (Defendant ejaculated: Well, you'd swear anything.) The person to whom he gave her a letter of introduction in Sydney was not at home when she called. She did not travel about the baekbloeks of Australia with ft third-rate theatrical company. She did travel the principal towns with the MacDermott Picture Company. There was no time specified for her holiday. She could not meet her people in Australia, because they took a six months' engagement in Perth, and she had no money to go there. Defendant: Are not you and a single gentleman the only occupants of the house at present? Witness: He is paying me 5s a week for a detached room. I could not turn him out while waiting for other ladies. I am practically destitute. (With warmth.) I am the mother of your son, and you have no right to make an insinuation like that. Witness, re-examined by Mr. Grey, stated that there were three men and two ladies in the MacDermott Company. She wrote and told her son about it. She got several letters from her son, who made no mention of his father objecting. Defendant made a long statement from the floor of the court, occasionally referring to several sheets of type-written matter. lie stated that he left the Commonwealth Hotel in May, 1905. His! finances were considerably shattered at the time, as he had lost £2500 in the fire, and was compelled to leave the hotel. They went to live privately, and lived on the best of terms as they had done during all their married life. When the MacDermott picture show came here, MacDermott and Scott came to his house in his absence. He was not a jealous or suspicious man, but soon after that his wife became dissatisfied, and wanted a trip to Melbourne, He managed to raise her fare, £l2 ss, and gave her £5, which with £2 of her own and her brother's £5, gave her £l2. He also gave her a letter of introduction to a friend who keeps an hotel in Sydney. Had she used this, her board would have cost nothing. Six weeks went by, and having heard nothing from her, he wrote to the friend previously mentioned. He received the reply that they had not seen her, but that she was travelling the back- | blocks with a MacDermottt picture company. "You could imagine my feelings at that, your Worship," he continued. After three months she came home, and asked, "Aren't you pleased to see me ?" He was not, and told her so. His evidence then bore out complainant's, from the time she returned until he came back from England. "Where other men would have wrung her neck, I paid her £4 0s Sd per month." His Worship: "'Why should you have wrung her neck? You had no evidence against her. She may possibly have been indiscreet." Defendant submitted that witness ha< no claim for maintenance. She had left home as the result of her own conduct and he was willing to let former differ ences drop, and do the proper thing b; her. He did not consider there wa any ground for separation, except lie extraordinary behaviour in Australia He considered, moreover, that it wa the province of the court to try an bring couples together, instead of trj ing to make the breach wider. To Mr .Grey: He had always lived o even terms with his wife. His habil

in the house were quite cleanly. No lady hail ever visited his present residence unless accompanied by a gentle man. Tt was a downright falsehood that he had ever put a lock 011 a cupboard containing eatables, tie lmtl done no on the chefl'otiier, which contained spirits, etc. As far as he knew, his wife was a good woman. He considered no wife had a right to travel without her husband's consent. He considered Mr. Grey would have acted worse than he did under similar circumstances.

Mr. Orcy: AVhen you went away did you ask her permission? Defendant :"Ask her!" (striking his breast). I am tile man that was finding the shekels of war, and don't ask any one."

His Worship: "Your wife was merely your chattel!"

To Mr. G'rey: He thought £1 per week sufficient to keep any woman. He could live on less than that. In further explanation, witness stated that his house and hotel were considerably mortgaged, mid what with keeping racehorses and paying Mrs. O'Driseoll her £1 a week, lie had cut considerably into his finances, and if he did not go away and work he would be "'stone broke." He intended going to Queensland soon to get into business. To His Worship: His son was 22, and did not do any work. It cost him £2 a week to keep himself and his son. His Worship said the sooner the son was sent to work the better. It was a great mistake to keep him idle. To His Worship: He intended taking 1 his wife to Queensland if she would go. His horses were in training, and would race on Friday. Waitapu cost £3OO, and was a failure. He would not get! 300 shillings for him now.

In further statements Mrs. O'Driseoll stated that she left her husband 14 or 15 years ago, owing to his conduct while away on a trip to Ireland. He refused to take her, as he said a man could have no fun if he was hampered by a woman and child. She returned to him, however, when he threatened to take the child.

To His Worship: She would not care to go back to him. As soon as she could make enough to keep herself she would not take his maintenance money. Her life was bad enough before, but. what would it be like now if she returned to him?

Hia Worship, in giving judgment, said it was clear that defendant had deserted his wife when he went to England, except that he agreed to pay her £1 per week. When he returned he did not ask her to live with him, but built, another house, and kept his son home in idleness. As regarded his income, according, to his own showing after allowing £2 for keep of himself and his son, and £1 for his wife's maintenance, he had £2l per year left, as well as his racehorses, etc. There was no doubt that since November he had failed to provide for his wife. As regards separation, defendant said he was willing to take his wife home again, and that he had H good home for her, but complainant did not want to go. Defendant had also said he was going to Australia. This seemed inconsistent. Judging from, the conduct of both paties, especially defendant's, it seemed to him they would be better separated. It appeared as if the only reason defendant wanted his wife back was to save the £52 per year maintenance. It seemed extraordinary that he did not ask any explanation of his wife's travel in Australia, but immediately on her return practically turned her out. Then again, in Court, he had made another reflection on his wife. All of thib went to show that unless the separation order was made there would be serious trouble. A separation order would be made as asked, and defendant would i have to pay £1 per week from date; also four months' arrears, amounting to £l7 6s Bd, with costs (£2 2s). Defendant: "In this case, Mrs O'Driseoll has got all she asked. I've made] a pretty good fist of the case for a j layman, and got nothing. Have I any right of appeal? I'm not too shook oil the verdict."

His Worship: "No: and be careful what you say, or you'll be committed for contempt of court." Defendant asked time to pav, and was ordered to pay £5 forthwith, and given a fortnight to pay the balance.