DESTITUTE PERSONS ACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 222, 19 September 1893, Page 8

DESTITUTE PERSONS ACT.

FATHER AND SONS,

Two peculiar cases under the above Acb were brought before Dr. Giles, R.M., at the Police Court.

John and George Renwick wore each charged with failing to contribute towards the support of their father and mother. Both pleaded not guilty, and said they had offered help, but their parents wanted money. Mr P. Battley appeared for the complainant. Evidence was given by defendants married sister that she had helped her parents. Her father w&a 70 and her mother 03. Sho had asked each brother to contribute Is 9d each towards paying the rent. Tho father being sworn deposed that he had been working in a gum store uatil a few weeks ago, when work got slack. His sons had refused to pay his rent. In answer to his son, witness admitted that thoy had told him not to worry about the rent as they would _ see it paid. Receipts wero handed in showing that the rent had been paid by tiie defendants. One of the defendants said : " We'll pay the ronb and nob see father end mother short for food, bub would rather not pay them cash to bo sponb in drink."

Dr. Gile3 said it did not appear to him that this was a case for an order. There was no necessity to call upon defendants to reply, U3 there had not been any refusal to contribute in case of need. He would recommend them to make some definite arrangement as to what they would do. The summons was dismissed.

MOTHER AND DAUGHTER. A young girl named Emily Maud Roweaged 18 years, was charged with not con tributiog towards tho support of her brothers and sisters under 14 years of ago. Mr G. N, Brassey appeared for tho complainant. Mrs Rowe deposed that slio had tivo children to support, that her husband had deserted her, and that her daughtor refused to leave her present situation whore Blio tot 5a a week when she might get another at 10s per weok. Sho objected to the locality in which her daughter resided. Defendant, being sworn, deposed that she earned 5s per week in n reapectabio place. People expected too much work if they paid 103 par weok wages. Sho was only 13 years of rjjo, and not as efcrong as her sistori Thero were six children where she was engaged, but she neither did tho washing or cooking.

By Mr Braesoy : Sho did not; care to go to an hotol as parlour maid. Who would rather stay whore shu was. Sho had told her mother after sho had got some clothing ehe would give her 2s 6d par week.

Dr. Giles said ho did not think this was a legitimate case. Ho had never boforo heard of a girl of that ago being brought before tho Court to show cause why she should not contribute towards tho support of hor brothers and sisters. Her tnothor evidently wished to make use of tho machinery of tho law to compel her daughter to change hor situation. Ho did not justify tho daughter in not accepting her mother's advice, but it was not for the Court to interfere. Supposing ho raado an order, which tho girl could nob , pay, was ho to send her to prison. Tho summons would be dismissed as it was an attempt to mako an illegitimate uso of tho machinery of the Court;.

Mr Brassoy explained that ho had only boon asked to take up the case just buforo tho Court eat.