MARRIAGE BY ADVERTISEMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3996, 31 July 1915, Page 3

MARRIAGE BY ADVERTISEMENT.

DOES NOT PROVE AN UN MIN ED SUCCESS. WIFE SEEKS SEPARATION ORDER. BUT FAILS TO SEVER THE GORDIAN KNOT. The. sequel to a marriage per medium of a matrimonial agency was hoard in the Magistrate'# Court yesterday, when Annie Margaret Peryer sought separation and maintenance from her husband, William Peryer,' on. the ground of alleged persistent cruelty and failure to maintain her. Mr L. T. Burnard appeared for complainant, and Mr T. Alston Coleman for defendant.. _ In opening, Mr .Burnard said the parties came together in Auckland as the outcome of an advertisement defendant saw in the papers. He was a widower, and she was divorced from her first- Inr-bnrxL Complainant, in her evidence, saKl that defendant had ill-treated her, and owing to his violent temper it was impossible to live with him. Witness told Dr Reeve all her symptoms. She did not take drugs, and had never done so. The bottle produced belonged to witness. IT contained a preparation ior acute indigestion. Witness bad administered it "to her husband and her son-in-law, but she herself had not taken any of it since she arrived in Gisborne. She did not know that.At contained inor- | p]jin, and had no idea what effect it would produce on the mind. Dr Walter Reeve said he attended the complainant shortly after her inm - riago, and again on June 18. He ex- | amined her, and found that she had lost very considerably in weight. She was thin and haggard, and eyas evidently suffering from lack, ol sleep, lack ' of nourishment, and mental worry. She complained of a pain in her side, and had a slight scar on her face. She was in a tnoroiighly run down condition. Her condition had considerably improved during the past six weeks. * Witness had also seen defendant,' and had gone out with complainant to see him, as complainant had received word that her husband was ill. He . found defendant in a j nervous state. Witness brought defendant back to town in bis car, in witness’ opinion omphunaiit’s condi--1 l ion would get worse it site went hack Ito her hushaiid.. She appeared to be ! m actual bodily fear. !‘v Air Coleman : The bottle o* tabloids produced suoitid not be i.n the hands of the public without a doctor’s certificate. 'They were not given for indiscriminate use. If they were taken to the extent as to produce the symptoms of chronic morphia poisoning It might make a woman disinclined to live with her uusband, but not if taken In small doses. John Henry Robinson, foil of the complainant, said he saw his mother in May of 191 1. Her arms were all black. " Witness saw his mother again in .Jiitm last, and noneod that her nose was swollen and scratched. This closed the case for c'-mplain- | ant. i Mr Coleman said the action was 1 based on two grounds-—cruelly and I failure to maintain, la response to an advertisement which lie saw in a newspaper, defendant got into touch wilii complainant and marriage follow, d as a remit of the meeting. D - 1 Undent;, was a widower and c-omplain- ' aid had obtained a divorce from In r previous husband. Complainant came [ to Gisborne, and' seemed dissatisfi d ! with the surroundings at defendant’s farm at Mauutuke. There were slight hick rings hut complainant got on fairly w ■:! on the w hole wth ill ' young r members of defendant's | family, a number of whom wore living j at. homo. Defendant did li’s b :st to i give in to a lady with a strong mind, ] and so the peace had bvn kept. ’Tine : whole trouble appeared to be that | complainant was disappointed at the I fact that defendant was only a work- ; iii"; farmer, and that sh-' 5 was exp:eijcd to do housework. Hsuggested | that the complainant was nor hana I liiie in the .action she was now taking j for separation and maintenance. 'l'ho j whole ease as far as complainant was | concerned, rooted on the allegation of ! cruelty. This rested entirely on j .something which happened six weeks

William Fervor, tlio defendant', denied that he had assaulted defendant in May, 1914. On that occasion complainant took down ;t photograph of a family wedding group, and stood it against- the wall. "Witness saw the photograph, and not knowing who had taken it down witness put it- hack again. Twice he found the photograph on tin' ground, and as he was putting it up for the third time complainant came into the room, and said, “If you put that photograph up again, [ will smash it to pieces.” Witness had the photograph in his hand, and complainant made a rush at him. caught him round the waist, and tried to throw him down. To save the picture witness threw it on the bed, and grabbed complainant by the arm. Mo admitted he might have hurt her arm on that occasion. Proceeding, witness said he would get on all right with his wife if she kept at homo a little more, and attended to the house. One week she came into town on four (lays running. Witness described a disputo on a recent Saturday night, ami said that the next day complainant came into town, and stayed there, bub bad been out to sec witness on three occasions. Witness had seen his wife seven or eight- times iu town, and on each occasion had asked her to return home. On the dav that- they went to the pictures together, his wife agreed to return home, hut when witness turned up at the appointed time complainant said she had changed her mind. Jsv Mr Purnard : On the three occasions complainant had come out to scii witness, she had not stayed. The firs I', time she came out with the doctor to see witness when he was ill, the second time she brought medicine out for witness, and the third time she came out- to get her tilings. Witness denied that lie had ill-treated his wife. Witness' complained that his wife did not stay enough at homo. He was more than satisfied if she would only do a reasonable amount of work in her home.

Con* lining.'"witness said that if lea wife returned he would treat her properly, F.videnee was also given bv Lillian Alice I’eryer, daughter of defendant, who said that- she and her brothers and sisters had always got on well with their stop-mother. The complainant never seemed really satisfied, but witness never hoard < anything definite. Witness’ father’s one thought was to do what ho could to please complainant. "Witness know her father to get up fremiontly in the night, and make tea for his wife. Complainant used to get up- for breakfast about 10 or 11 o'clock, and her husband used to take her tea into her. . ~ p,y Mr Human!: Witness could pot think much of. her stop-mother, considering the way she had treated her father. -Frederick Poryor, sou of defendant, said he had always got on all right with bis step-mother, and had always done what no could for her. One Saturdg" night about six weeks ago, lie heard someone call out “Fred.” On getting out of bed. ho saw his father and mother on the verandah, and when he asked what, was the matter Iris father said he was only trying to rot- his wife to bed. Cmuohunan said that defendant- had been ill-tveat-in<r her, but defendant domed this. Percy John Wninwright, . Baptist minister, said that about a fortnight ao-o defendant called to ,see. witness, and talked over the case with witness. He then admitted that he had touched his wife’s nose. His Worsbin said that ho was not satisfied on the evidence that dot enda'nt had heed guilty of persistent cruelty or failure to. maintain. He

could not- make a separation order on such flimsy grounds. The parties should get some sensible person to endeavor to effect- a reconciliation. ' It was a mattei for regret that the case had been brought, as such actions, ho always thought, tended to widen the breach. The ease would be dismissed, each side to pay -mir own costs.