AN UNHAPPY, UNION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 3708, 18 December 1912, Page 6

AN UNHAPPY, UNION.

MATRIMONIAL TROUBLES

A'ENTILATED

CLAIM FOR SEPARATION ORDER.

“1 DID IT TO SHIELD HIM.”

A sordid state of affairs, existing between husband and wife, was ventilated before Mr AY. A. Barton, S.M., yesterday, when Ellen McCarthy (Mr Burnard) proceeded against her husband, Thomas McCarthy (Mr Bright) for an order containing the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the ‘‘Destitute Persons Act,” on the ground that he failed to provide her with adequate means of maintenance. Mr Burnard said the parties were married nine years ago, complainant’s people then advancing to the defendant the sum of £IOO, which was squandered through his drinking habits: The home at Hawera was broken, but defendant established a second home at Palmerston North, complainant’s relatives again advancing £79, which defendant again squandered. Complainant had to leave defendant- owing to his drinking habits and he went to Taumaranui, having given her but little maintenance since then. He had endeavored to smooth matters over by offering her another home, but she was not, on top of her past experience, going to be led away bv that pretence. ' COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE. Complainant, in evidence, made a statement similar to the above. She had three children, girls 6 and S years of age and a boy 3. She went to work with her husband from the .second day after marriage and from the tinm of the birth of their first child, he had drunk heavily. At Palmerston North her home was a poorly furnished one and at Gisborne it .was not a great deal better. Her husband was twice prohibited, the last order expiring 2-| years ago, before he went away. Defendant was fined for procuring liquor and she paitned her watch to pav his fine. On November 25, 1910, defendant went away, saying he was going up the railway line for orders. Prom Opotiki lie wrote that he was working, but sent her nothing for ten months. She was almost destitute and received help from many friends, particularly those where she worked. He went to Taumarunui and she did not see him again until last Sunday night. She had received an average of loss than 10s per week since he left. During 1912 he offered her a home Mr Burn ard read letters which j complainants solicitors wrote to defendant during the vear, advising him not to return to Gisborne, in answer to his persistent intention to do so. Counsel also read a letter from defendant in which he said he would not send another penny if she did not agree to his requests. A WIFE'S SACRIFICE. Air Bright: AY hen defendant was last convicted'in this Court, did you not say that the liquor was procured for you ? AVitness: I did. I said it was for me, but I was shielding him His AVorship: AA'as it a fact that it was for you ? AA’itness: No, sir, it was not. Air Bright read evidence given by a constable at Taumaranui to the effect that defendant had kept sober and respectable during his residence there and asked: AA’ould you refuse to live with defendant if you knew this was true ?

Witness : I would not. Mr Bright: Why. • Witness: .Because I know him too wel I. Mr Bright: Would you go back m five years if he kept sober and straight all that time. Witness: I will tell you in five years time. sir. Witness added that she had wanted much during the time defendant was away and that she earned her living as a tailoress.

OFTEN SADLY IX WANT. B. G. Dudfield said that defendant’s habits were the reverse of sober while lie was in Gisborne and complainant was practically destitute at one time. William Webb, builder, said that, while in Gisborne, defendant was addicted to drink and still owed witness £7 or £8 for rent of a shop. Lie knew complainant and her children, who were kept beautifully clean and were much admired by people. ■ John Kane fra id he knew that plaintiff was often sadly in want and that neighbors supplied her and her children with food. A. J. Cooper, bootmaker, said he saw defendant at the races at Auckland on Boxing Day last, defendant being under the influence of liquor. While in Gisborne defendant was generally under the influence of drink. James Johnston said that complainant had worked with him and later for him during a period of four years. I-Ie had assisted complainant and knew of others who had assisted her. HIS CONDUCT EXEMPLARY. Mr Bright said the whole of the e / - dence called was with regard to defendant’s habits in Gisborne, but 'ou since. .During the time defendant was at. Taumaranui, his conduct had been exemplary or, as a police constable in evidence put it, he had bee ' a ’ sober, industrious and hard-wo;K-ing man.’’ It seemed hard, now that lie had reformed, that- he should be compelled to keep two homes. Counsel put in the evidence of the con stable and three independent witnesses who testified to defendant’s good conduct at Taumaranui. Thomas McCarthy, defendant, said lie left Gisborne two years ago. While here, he was addicted to drink and was charged with a breach of his prohibition order. Soon afterwards, he went to Opotiki and worked there for three months, sending bis wife money on various occasions. At Opotiki. he took occasional drinks. From there lie walked to Taumaranui and had worked steadily there, being in business on his own account for most of the time. He had practically been a total abstainer there. He had sent complainant money regularly, but could not say what the total amount was. Last Christinas time, she said she would come to him after the holidays, because she did not want to leave her employers in the lurch right away. Complainant bad refused to come to him from July last, for no specific reason. Hejvas still prepared to offer her a home NOT A PROHIBITIONIST.

To Mr Barnard: He had £6O in cash and what was in his shop and was prepared to furnish a bouse which he had ready for her. He had sent some money by letter, but most of it through the Post Office. He would not dispute that the total he srnt through the Post Office was £49 7s fid. He was not a prohibitionist, although he had practically no drink while in the North. “I had two drinks yesterday,” he said, “and one this morning.”

Air Burnard: AVere you drunk at the Auckland races? Air Cooper says so. Witness: If he says that, he :e a liar, and an infernal liar at that. Mr Burnard: If that is true, would it not be good reason for your wife not to come to you ? AVitness: That is the trouble with my wife all the time. She believes any little tales about me. ORDER GRANTED. His AVorship: Have you had any liquor this morning? Witness: Yes, I have had a shandy and two lemonade and cloves. His AA r orship: Did you drink at Palmerston ? Witness: Yes, I had an occasional drink. His AVorship: I think you have a good many occasional drinks. His AVorship said he did not think it right, in all the circumstances, that complainant should be compelled to return to defendant. The whole of their married life had been wretched and lie would not compel her to return to such misery. Defendant said he was reforming, but His AVorship could not doubt the evidence of Cooper that he saw defendant intoxicated at the Auckland races in December last. ‘ An order was made for summary separation, that defendant should contribute £1 a week towards complainant’s maintenance and giving complainant guardianship of the children until they were 16 years of age, with costs and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s).