MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9550, 24 July 1909, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

PPLICATION FOR SEPARATION ORDER. j At the Magistrate's Court, at Masrton, yesterday, before Mr C. C. j raham, S.M., Elizabeth Wal ace ] jplied for a separation order from i ;r husband, William Wallace, a i irm labourer, residing at Masterton.' i r Pownall appeared for complainit. and Mr 0. N. C. Pragnell for sfendant. Elizabeth Wallace, complainant, lid she was married to defendant at anneviike about four and a half ( sara ago. A short time after mar- j age her husband left her to go to . ahiatua for two and a hair" months, j ie being left without means of supurt. Witness then went to Pahiaia also, and on returning to Danevirke found her furuiture had bean sized by the landlord for overdue ;nt. After that she and her husand had been to Auckland for three lonths, to New Plymouth, Halcombe, nd other places later on. During hese changes of residence witness aid she had often to live in places nfit to be habitated Alex Sneddon, brother of comlainant, said he visited his sister (hen she resided in Auckland. .Witess got defendant a job through a riend of his. He found his sister iving in a house in a statu bordering n starvation. There was next to othing in the house in the way of urniture, and practically no food. :here was a young baby in the louse. Defendant at the time was n work. Witness remonstrated with lefendant. The house was a moat hlapidated one. Lily May Sneddon, wife of the jrevious witness, said that for about line weeks the parties in the case lived with her at Auckland. Daring ;hat time defendant went into Auckand several times with the expressed intention of getting work, which he lever managed to get. Wallace foi lowed hi 3 wife about, an 4 , acted it; a jealous manner generally. This closed complainant's case. Mr Pragnell, in his opening, briefly addressed the Court on puints of law. Counsel quoted authorities in support of his contention that defendant had not refused to maintain his wife, and also in support of a contention that the application had not been made to the right court. Mr Pownall replied to these, and his Worship said he would reserve his decision on the points of law. Mr Pragnell said his client had done bis best to maintain his wife. Complainant, on pretence of going away for a holiday, left her husband permanently. Counsel contended that there were no grounds for an order. Win. Wallace, defendant, stated that he worked at the various places mentioned in complainant's case. He supported his wife to the best of his means during this time. Witness said he removed to Auckland for the benefit of his wife's health, having to leave good work on this account. At Auckland he worked intermittently. For a time complainant resided with her brother, at Henderson, as she objected to living with witness on a farm, on account of the rojgh conditions. Good friendship was main> tained through all this. Eventual Ij complainant did come aDd live there, Witness generally denied the allegations of complainant and her wit nesses. Witness produced a letter in refutation of the allegations o: laziness on his part, from an em ployer asking him to come back am work for him again. The Magistrate said that in fao of the evidence he could not grant th order, and the application was rii» missed.