DOMESTIC TROUBLES.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4341, 10 February 1893, Page 3

DOMESTIC TROUBLES.

Gardiner ut. Gardiner,

Charles Robert Gardiner was charged with deserting his wife, Olivia Gardiner, and his child. Mr Pownall appeared for the complainant. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Pownall Baid this was ono of the unfortunate cases which do occasionally arise, in which a wife was forced to leave bor husband's premises by the brutal conduct aud cruelty of her htißband. It appeared that (ho defendant considered that marriage was slavery and that wedlock meant a license to uso a woman worse than a dumb animal,

Olivia Margaret Maria Gardiner, i wifo of tbe defendant, deposed to leaving ber husband's house on the SOth i of January. For tho last tbreo yeura i bo had used witness badly, and on tho | 28th of January beat her unmcroi- ] fully. On tho 80th of January ao- i cused threatened to strike her, saying " I'll strike yon on the b— month." Left her husband on tho 22nd November, 1892, because he had nearly broken her jaw on the 20th of the same month. After being away about three weoks returned to Masterlon, For it whilo accused treated her better, On two previous occasions left on account of accused's ill-treatment. On the 80th he had gone out and witness told him she would not be in the house when he came back, Her reason for goine, was that sho approhen> ded further ill-treatment. Had offered to go away and live peacefully. Accused on ono occasion caught hor by tho throat, and pressed his elbow on her ebest with such violence that she felt tho effects ut the present time. Honestly feared that somo injury might be dono to her, as accused had threatened and told hor there were no witnesses to see. Her child was four years old, anil sho had no means of support, Her husband refused to assist her unless she went back. In answer to her husband, witness said she did not remember attempting to striko him with an axe, She had smashed up the furniture on one occasion, and also knocked a clock down by accident. More than one clock had been broken by her, but not wilfully, Recollected, throwing a toapot at accused, but that was becausehehithor on the lace with a piece of meat, Further qucstioned.witness admitted that accused waa in hod when she throw tho teapot at him. Previous to her going to Wellington accused had agreed to giro her a pound a week clear of all expenses, He gave it on ono week only. Had sometimes given hor all his wages. Received money from her husband in Ohristclmrcb and in Wellington. Since witness camo back she had not been treated so badly, Accused : Did I not ask you to go to tho Theatre sines you returned ? Witness-: You asked mo whon too . late to get ready.

Accused: When \ oame home from work, -tired/and hungry, do you rern'embei' continually jawing at mo?"

Witness; I havo sometimes but not without reason.

Accused : Were you not continually nagging at mo ? .

Witnoss: Not without reason,

Inreplytga'ques'liou'aatdwhotll

alio hatl boon to take tlio ! mailer into Court,witness gave along statemont of bor wrongs concluding with an allusion to advice from lion solicitor. At this accused remarked that the" lir*yor ought to bo ashamed of hinuolf."

Mr Pownall objected to remarks of this nature being made and said if ho recoived any nioro impudence in tho Court, he should be obliged to" sit on" the accused, and if accused was impertinent outside tho Court he should simply " wring his neck." Witness continuing her replies to her husband said she recollected going to tho chumist'a with a bottle with something in, She thought Ira husband put it in, hut did not seo him. Might have brokon tlio cups and saucers, Did as she liked about it. Remembered throwing a jug at the accused,

Accused; Why did I catch hold of you round the waist and hold yon ? Witness: You hurt mo badly by pressing my sides. Accused: Was it not to keep you from smashing the tea things ?

Witness: No. Accussed: Did you fling a jug on the floor or not. Witness: I did on one occasion after your striking ine.

Mr Pownall: What wages doosho earn,

Witness: £2 10s n weok. Mr Pownall; Why did you throw things about.

Witness: Because he threatened to strike me.

Mr Pownall: Did any of the threats take place during your last visit home Witness: Not since I last came home.

0. Gardiner then went into tho box and, boing sworn, said his wife left their home last January without any reason. When he asked her to go to the theatre one evening she oaid "No." Witness went, and when ho came homo found things up sida down, his wife gone and the bedstead smashed up, For the last three years he had a had lifo to lead, his wife was always nagging at him, Ee had supplied her with plenty of everything necessary for their homo, Sho was of a jealous temperament and made things uncomfortable in this way. He never abused her or knocked her about, only in self-defence, He admitted having bit her on the obeek as stated in her ovidenee. It was only done in order to avoid her striking at him. Ho held up his hands as she ran up to strike hire. He immediately expressed his sorrow for the blow. Sho had left him on two different occasions and on both of these he had sent her money, when he found her address. The home was there for bor to return to, and he supplied her with all necessaries, He was not in a position to keep two homes. Mr Pownall: She has always been well provided for in her home. Mr Pownall: Do you want hor to return home ? Witness: Yes,

Mr Pownull: What was tho longest period she was away, Witness: Threo week, Mr Pownall: What money did you send her ? Witness: Three pounds, Mr Pownall: How long did tho " nagging " continue ? Witness: Right up to the limo sho left? Mr Pownall: How then are you anxious for her to go hack ? Witness: Because lam fond of it. Mr Pownall: Will you swear that you havo novor struck her only on one occasion ? Witness: I only Struck her on the one occasion. Mr Pownall: Did you not threaten to strike her ? Witness; Yes. I have threatened, Mr Pownall: Was it necessary to hit her under the ear in soli-defence ? Witness: I did not strike her in this way. She ran against my open hand. Mr Pownall: Havo yon not caught hold of her and pushed her about ? Witness: Yes, To keep her from breaking the crockery. Mr Pownall: Would yon not be better apart, considering tho circumstances, and make her some small allowance? Witness: I could not answer that question. If she made herself comfortable it was better to live together. Mr Pownall: Could you not allow her ten shillings a week'? Witness: No. Twenty shillings would keep us both, She has a home to come to when sho likes to return to it,

Tho Bench was of opinion that thero wero faults on both sides, and unfortunately a very great incompatibility of temper, Thero was not, however, sufficient evidence to warrant any order being made. The Court then roso.