MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 136, 8 June 1917, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

AFFILIATION CASES. (Before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M.) An order for separation, maintenance, and custody of one child, ou the grounds of persistent cruelty, was sought by Wlihelmlna Lnwson (Mr. Mahoucy) against •I'eter Lnwson. Defendant, who was not represented, appeared, nnd agreed to tne order being issued; maintenance to be paiu at the rate of 10/ per week. REDUCTION OF ORDER SOUGHT. Harold Markwtck, applied (through Mr. McLlver) for the suspension of an order made against him in April last, under the Destitute Persons Act, for the payment of 1."./ per week iv favour of his wife, Lilah Mark wick. Mrs. Mark wick did not appear, but was represented by Mr. Dixon, who asked for an adjournment on the grounds that Ids client was not lit to attend. Counsel for defendant opposed the adjournment, contending that as Mrs Markwick had been attending dances she was well able to be present. Markwick said that Ms wife was employed at the Thames Hotel, at the rate of 20/ per week. This was dear, as she had no board to pay. He averaged £1 0/6 per week, but cbnld not offer to pay 10/ per week, as out of this he kept the child of the marriage aud himself. Further, he was paying off, at the rate of 10/ per week, debts incurred when his wife was living with hun. Cross-examined by Mr. Dixon, applicant udmltted receiving in addition to his wages 10/ per week for acting in the capacity of v pianist at dances. A Mrs Leech, at whose house he was hoarding, did not ball liim out, when recently he was arrested on a charge of false pretences, neither whs there on the mantelpiece at the house a photograph of himself and Mrs Leech taken together. In taking into consideration the whole facts of the case his Worship reduced the order to 10/ per week; defendant to keep an account of his earnings and expenses. INCREASE OF ORDER GRANTED. An application for an existing order against Richard Wni. Boenicke to bo increased from 7 (i to 30/ per week was made by his wife Annie Boenicke. Defendant was represented by Mr. Uliphant, who offered a sum of £250 to settle Mrs. Koenlcke'g claim. This offer Mr. Harkett, who appeared for Mrs Boenicke, refused to accept, as defendant had recently Inherited a sum of about £-000. Counsel asked that the order be increased, and that surety should be ordered for carrying out the weekly payments. His Worship, Mr. Kettle, considered it was a proper case for surety, and fixed the amount at £l."iO, also Increasing order to 30/ weekly. Costs £- 2/ were also allowed. ORDER FOR MAINTENANCE MADE. An application was made by Elizabeth Mctiovern for maintenance, separation and guardianship against her husband, T. E. L. Mctiovern. Mr Allen Moody appeared for the complainant, and Mr llall-Skelton for the defendant. Mr Moody said that, ill view of the fact that the parties had not lived together for over seven years, he would abandon the charge of persistent cruelty. lie said that complainant's evidence would be to the effect that the husband bad not supported the wife, as she had. under agreement with him. undertaken tn support herself, he supporting the children. At present she was unable to support herself, and bad to take these pro- . ceedlngs. She was at present ln 111-health. Complainant gave evidence on the lines indicated by counsel, and the Magistrate i made an order for 15/ per week malnten- , ance, 30 past maintenance, and £1 1/ I costs. The question ot tne separation and , guardianship of the children to stand over [ lv the meantime. APPLICATION DISMISSED. F. ,f. Clmrrhward applied for the reduction of an order for the payment of £2 7/6 : per week made against him on the 26th . August of last year In favour of his wife, : Edith May Churchward. He further applied ! for the cancellation of arrears, amounting ■to f7 odd. Mr Hall-Skelton appeared for ■ Mrs Churchward. Applicant submitted that as he had paid £23 Into court Bince the Sth of March, and was now not in a position to continue the payments through being out of employment, his application should be acceded to. He admitted, however, to Mr liall-Skelton that prior to four ■ weeks ago his dally earnings averaged 13/. The application was dismissed, and applicant was ordered to pay £1 1/ costs.