“A LIFE OF TERROR”

Taranaki Daily News, 25 May 1921, Page 6

“A LIFE OF TERROR”

I SEQUEL IN DIVORCE COURT. A TARANAKI CASE. ’’Why do these people want to be tied together when the}’ are unhappy—what is the use of fighting the case?” This was the remark made by His Honor Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, in the course of a divorce case in which both husband and wife recited lengthy statements of the unhappiness of their married life. The husband had said he led a “dog's life,” and the wife contended she was a “most wronged woman.” The case arose out of a petition by Charles Prince, of Ashhurst, and formerly of Kakaramea, for a dissolution of marriage from Agnes Prince, of Waipuku, on the grounds of desertion. Mr. P. O’Dea appeared for petitioner, and Mr. A. Coleman -for respondent. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. W. H. Beadle, J. A. Boswell, G. Dowdnev. E. T. Holden, F. H. Robertson, T. Hawkins, W. Inch, S. A. Dailey, S. G. Higgs, W. J. Eva, H. A. Abbott, W. B. Grant. Mr. Robertson was chosen foreman.

Petitioner, according to his counsel’s statement, was in the employ of the Railway Department, but at the time of his marriage in August, 1917. was a member of the Expeditionary Force undergoing training at Trentham. The parties were married in the Catholic Church at Wanganui, and lived together in the vicinity of the camp at Trentham. Respondent had always been of a very peculiar disposition, a sort of “nagger.” She had really only allowed petitioner to treat her as a wife for about three weeks, and then began to make trouble. Petitioner later had leave, and with his wife went to Wanganui, but here she left him and went to her people’s place at Waipuku. Petitioner was appointed an instructor in ■ the C.l camp at Featherston, and remained there until about December, but his wife declined to go to him. Continuing, Mr. O’Dea said that respond‘ent’s refusal to allow petitioner to treat her as a wife constituted desertion. This she had denied, but in the Magistrate’s Court at Stratford she had admitted refusing him his rights as a husband on the grounds, she said, that petitioner was cruel to her. Mr. O’Dea read extracts from a letter addressed to petitioner by his wife some time in October, 1917. just a few weeks after their marriage, and just before he left for the front, in which she accused him of putting her friends before her, and stating that he had turned her love to hate, in effect that she was not going to live with any more.

OBJECTED TO SMOKING. All the time Prince was away at the front he never had a letter from his wife, she was not there to meet him when he returned invalided in 1919, and the first thing he got a week or so after his return was a lawyer’s letter asking for maintenance. Petitioner .was an outpatient at this time of the Wanganui Hospital. His wife had been getting his allowance from the Defence Department whilst he had been away. When Prince received this lawyer’s letter it was the first intimation he had received that a child had been born. He wrote asking his wife to go down to Wanganui to see him, but she wrote a short note to the effect that this was impossible, and suggesting that he come up to Waipuku, where she was living with her people. He applied for transfer to Stratford Hospital so that he would be near, and got 24 hours’ leave in order to come up and see his -wife. On two occasions he stayed in the -same house with his wife, but they did not occupy the same room. Later he secured a home for his wife and child and himself at Waipuku, but petitioner was always denied his marital rights, respondent saying she did not want to be bothered with any more children. Petitioner recounted numerous instances where he alleged receiving ill-treatment at the hands of his wife. She had generally treated him very badly. He had had a dog’s life. Site had called him names too numerous to mention, and was frequently throwing off about members of his family. She objected to his smoking, and he had to take his heavy boots off before going into the house.

In cross-examination by Mr. Coleman, Prince was asked as to whether he was not in the habit of using immoral and disgusting language to his wife. He said he may have said something nasty and out of place at times. When he went away from New Zealand he allotted his pay to his wife through his mother, as he did not know her address. He did not know whether or not the military authorities’ record showed that payments were to be made to his mother. His Honor said that unfortunately the military authorities were not too exact during the war, and there were many mistakes. “THREW EGGS AT HER.” Prince denied that during the time he was at Waipuku he assaulted his wife, using obscene language, but admitted throwing eggs at her. He brought home a number of war trophies, including a Prussian patrol dagger, but he did not threaten his wife with the weapon. Asked if he could Understand why his wife, a woman of good moral character, would make certain alleged remarks, Prince said that she would say anything when she got her tongue loose.

For respondent, Mr. Coleman stated that the case was a most unfortunate one, being that of two people, having really very little in common, who had to live their life together even for a comparatively brief period. The cause of the action was the alleged refusal of the wife to grant marital rights to her husband. The defence would be a denial of the refusal of marital rights, except on certain occasions when the re; fusal was justified by the state of the wife’s health. Counsel also pointed out the fact that although the parties were married for three years, the total time they Jived together was only eight months, spread over various intervals Prince’s conduct- was an absolute disgrace, and his treatment of his wife no credit to manhood, and finally she left him.

Respondent, Agnes Prince, said she was at present residing at Wanganui. She had known Prince eight years, and kept company with him most of that time. .During the period his behaviour was of the best. He had asked her to marry him several times, but she did not feel inclined to do so till he had got a home. When he got final leave he again asked her, saying if she would only take hig name for one day he would go away a happy man. She finally consented, and Prince left her to make the arrangements for the wedding. On the morning of the wedding

she noticed something wrong with her husband’s people who did not seem to be very pleased with the marriage. She remarked on this to him when they had got on the mail train, and he said his people did not x want him to marry, as she was only after his money. . TROUBLE PROM THE START. Differences arose from the start of the marriage. Prince refused to pay her back the money she had spent to buy the wedding ring (at his request), and also the cost of the marriage, certificate, and other money she had spent on his behalf while in camp. She boarded at an hotel near the camp, and had to pay her own board, as Prince did not offer her any’ money. There were several quarrels over the interference of her husband’s people. Prince got ten days’ leave, and both went to Wanganui, but subsequently he returned to camp without seeing her. She wrote him the letter which had been read in Court, and made it pretty “hot,” as she thought it would bring him to his senses. She got no reply, and thinking he had taken offence wrote inviting him to come and see her. There was no reply to this or a third letter. She later found out that Prince had left New' Zealand. The next word of him was that he had been slightly wounded in France. When she got word that he was coming back on the Raranga she did not go and meet him, as her health was not too good, and the child required a lot of attention. When Prince got to New Zealand he subsequently went to see respondent, and they set up house at Waipuku. She lived a life of terror while there. On one occasion Prince went about thumping the walls of the house and roaring out, and also struck witness before she could get out of the way. One night he burst a door open with a crowbar, and she jumped out of a window on to the ground (a drop of about five feet), and went to a neighbor’s and then home. The Court adjourned at 5 p.m. till this morning.