Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 8192x9728 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

losses LAW COURTS.
STOTHERS COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.
Wy Monday, September 14.
i' (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.)
Matrimonial Cause. , ,
Martin v. Martin.
This was a petition by Louisa M- W.
Martin for a judicial separation from her
husband, Ernest Edward Martin, of the ground
of alleged cruelty.. Mr. E. E. de
. Stock appeared for the petitioner; and. Mr.
J. B. Anderson for the respondent, who
denied the allegations of the petitioner, and
filed counter charges. The case was adjourned
from Friday.
The respondent, who was cross-examined
by Mr. Cleland, said he had
always treated his wife with kindness
and - consideration." He never taunted
him. He had only v once used bad
language to her, and only once
caught her by the wrist. His wife was
Very hysterical.. She left home on three
occasions prior to January, 1898. He had
»ofll;feeling towards her.
j Drs Lendon, recalled, said he regarded
assets of the symptoms for which he had
suggested the petitioner as of a neurotic
¡»Aaimcter. Neurotic conditions were
?^«fottly allied to hysteria, and led to
a tendency to exaggerate events and
[Heightened the imagination. He did not
| think it was probable that the neurotic
auditions had been induced by unkind
> treatment, such as she had alleged in evi
<? jUtjce.Bhe had received from her husband.
: Bach treatment might act as a stimulus to
the neurotic conditions.
s. i Mrs. Sarah E. Martin, wife or a cousin of
the respondent, stated that she had visited.
by the Martins at Laura and at Hyde Park. At
the latter place a quarrel occurred between
Mrs. and Mr. Martin. She did not
know how the quarrel originated. She
heard a sound like the breaking of a win ;
dow. The petitioner and the respondent
I then went into the room where witness was.
IV-The respondent was holding the petitioner's
wrist, and Mrs. Martin was trying to strike
' -her husband with a broom handle. She appeared
much excited, and bit her husband's
, band.'' At this he called her a, she-devil,
mmA KIMO! her wrists. He appeared to
and remains. UKI IKISK. <» guava is
..,- is frightened of her. The petitioner rush
;' ed out of the house, and next morning she
" told witness that she was sorry for what
had occurred, and said she could not con-
trol her temper, and added that she had
sometimes pulled her hair out by the handful
to keep from getting wild." As far as
; the witness had any opportunity of seeing
the respondent used to treat his Wife kindly.
2 In giving judgment his Honor said the
"case was a very sad one The respondent
had been holding a responsible Government
position throughout the whole of his
married life. His Honor had come to the
-' conclusion on listening to the evidence that
if alive forbearance were exercised on
both sides there would be no reason why
trespasses should not live together. They
had intelligent children, and it seemed a
pity that they could not make concessions
each other. The law relating to actions
of this kind was clearly laid down by the
Court of Appeal in the case of Russell v.
Russell, 1865, probate division 323, which
act out that the courts would not grant a
divorce without proof given of danger to
life or limb, or health, or of a reasonable apprehension
of bodily harm. Acts of cruelty
were alleged against the respondent. The
evidence seemed to establish that there
were faults on bothe rides. It appeared that
the husband used sometimes to stay out
late at nights, and he did not deny that he
was drunk on one occasion. It, was not
alleged that he often got drunk. He denied
that he had been in the habit of using
language such as was attributed to him, and
it was remarkable that the petitioner had
not called any of her relatives and friends
who used to visit her to corroborate her
statement as to the use of language which
would be highly painful to a sensitive
woman. He could easily imagine that the
husband would feel it somewhat hard to
have to go to work without breakfast in-the
morning, and to find there was no dinner
for him when he returned home simply because
he had been detained at the office
where he worked. He thought the real explanation
was found in the evidence given
J Dr. Lendon, which showed that the peti-
tioner was of a highly neurotic character,
and that she magnified her imaginary and
real grievances until she satisfied herself
that she was badly used. The doctor had
less. «»rJrl«m<xi stating relate Persons of a
liver evidence showing such person as a
neurotic temperament were liable to exaggerate,
and even to imagine things which
Were not actually true. He thought that
the petitioner had nursed her fancied grievances
until she had put a construction on
them which' was not consistent with
the facts. There was no evidence
to support the most' serious
part of the petition. He found, that
the evidence given as to the three assaults
was not corroborated, and there was no evidence
to support the allegation that the
petitioner had had a conversation with her
husband in reference to medicine which she
stated he had obtained from a chemist some
time prior to her illness In 1897. Referring
to the allegation in the petition connected
with the alleged incident, the judge commented
on the fact that the chemist re-
ferred to had not been called to give evidence
in support of her story. It was in
) conceivable that if the allegation was true
she would have refrained from seeking to
obtain evidence from the chemist. The petition
would be dismissed. He hoped that
the petitioner would return to her husband
s home, and that she would endeavor
by conciliation and kindness to win back
his love for her.
Mr. Cleland asked for an order that the
respondent should pay the petitioner's costs
of his trial He said that he had not called
Of the trial, we star turn. is more usual
the chemist in question, as he had been informed
that he refused to give any information
on the point referred to
Mr. Anderson opposed the application,
and said the respondent had already paid
£40 towards the petitioner's costs. He said
he had seen the chemist in question, and
understood that his reply given to Mr.
Cleland's agent was that there was no
truth in the allegation that he had supplied
medicine as stated by the petitioner.
His
Honor said be would adjourn the
question of costs to enable the parties to
obtain affidavits in respect to the matter.
$