SEPARATION SOUGHT

Taranaki Daily News, 30 June 1922, Page 6

SEPARATION SOUGHT

PARTIES WHO DID NOT AGREE HOFFMANN VERSUS HOFFMANN. A case which occupied the greater part of the sitting was heard at the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr. A. W. Mowlem, S.M. Theresa Hoffmann (Mr. A. A. Bennett) proceeded against Louis Ernest Hoffmann (Mr. C. H. Weston), asking the court for maim tenance and a separation order, on the ground of alleged drunkenness. When the case was called, leave was asked and granted to add “and alleged persistent cru elty” to the grounds for a separation order. Evidence was given by Mrs. Hoffmann and two of her sons (Ernest and Harry) as to defendant’s alleged conduct. For the defence, defendant objected to the application, as it was said that the causes which contributed to the grounds of the application were not attributable to any fault of the complainant. The first witness for the defence was Oliver Win. Sole, who had been in business at New Plymouth for 35 years, and had premises near defendant, whom he had known for 30 years. He had never seen Hoffmann drunk, though he saw him plaily I in business hours. He considered defendant was very attentive to business. In answer to Mr. Bennett, witness said he could not say what condition defendant would be in after five o’clock as a rule. Alfred Wm. Webster, manager of the New Plymouth branch of the Bank of New South Wales, said he bad known Hoffmann since being here, about five years. He had never seen defendant intoxicated. He was banker for the British and Continental Piano Co., of which Hoffmann was manager, and which business he managed successfully. I To Mr. Bennett: He knew Hoffmann was ; not a teetotaler. He occasionally saw defendant after banking hours, but as a rule would have no knowledge of his condition after 5 pjn. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE. Defendant, giving evidence, said he was married about 28 years ago. It was a most unhappy marriage, and “we never got/ on from the start.” He put down the trouble to drink and an ungovernable temper on the part of his wife. The trouble four years ago was caused by his wife being always drunk. After being away from his wife for two years, he went back; but matters did not improve. When under the influence of drink, she was “fighting drunk.” He used to play cards sometimes at night, but if his wife did not win there was always . a row. He always got his own breakfast, j his wife getting his dinner and tea; but | since they were hot living in the same room he was only home for breakfast. They were unable to agree, but Court proceedings were not mentioned by any of them, and the first he knew of it was when he received the summons. He had always given his wife £2 to £2 10s a week. Most of the provisions for the house were bought by the wife, he buying the meat. His wife asked him for the money to pay bills. His wife never complained to him that she had not enough money to live upon. •He had never laid his hands upon his wife. “A DELIBERATE LIE.” The allegations of habitual drunkenness , were untrue —“a deliberate lie”—and he would defy anyone to say he was a drunkard. He was not a teetotaler, Sometimes he had a drink about 5.30 pan., but not always. He had had a very successful time in business, and handed in a testimonial from his late employers, with whom he had been associated for 14 years, and whose business was now being wound up. He now conducted the business under the name English and Foreign Piano Agency. The only piece of land he owned was a beach cottage, for which he paid £2 10s ground rent. He gave £l2O for the cottage. Both had agreed that 30s a week was sufficient for his wife’s maintenance. To Mr. Bennett: When he was doing well he gave his wife £5 a week, bought a beach cottage, bought a piece of land at Motorua and built a house, selling it later at a profit of about £2OO. He denied that he told his wife it cost him £4 a week for taxi hire. The beach cottage rent produced £1 2s 6d weekly, which to a month ago was drawn by the children. The question of past maintenance had never been complained of. Mr. Kirkby (of Roy, Nicholson and Bennett’s staff) had never seen him on the question of maintenance. He saw him about a clause in the deed. He did not suggest that a deed of separation should be drawn up, though Mr. Kirkby had seen him about drawing it up. Mr. Kirkby did not suggest that witness had failed to maintain. At this stage (5 p.m.) Mr. Bennett indicated that he had an urgent appointment to keep, and the case was adjourned for a week. Mr. Weston stated that he had two more witnesses yet to call.