WIFE'S APPEAL FAILS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 202, 27 August 1931, Page 8

WIFE'S APPEAL FAILS.

MAINTENANCE DISPUTE.

HUSBAND'S SAIiE OF CAR.

HEAVY BUSINESS LOSSES,

A former Auckland boot manufacturer, Joshua Carder, was successfu lin opposing an appeal Tsy his wife in the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Smith, to-day, against the variation of a maintenance order in the Magistrate's Court. The dispute had come before the Court on July 8 and was adjourned. Appellant was Lucy Helena Carder, for whom Mr. R. A. Singer appeared. Mr. J. J. Sullivan represented the respondent.

.Mr. "Singer, said a "crisis" had been reached in the cross-examination when the adjournment was taken> because the Court, required evidence of the registration -of a car. which, .the ' respondent; Carder, claimed he had:' sold, although he.continued to liave-the use of it:for some "time. The investigation : showed that Carder, was correct in, stating, that the ear was not registered 'in his name. It had been in a woman's nam© since June, 2930. ■.: ." ! Motor Trip* at ; Easter, j, . Carder was closely cross-examined by Mr.- Singer, as to wnere he spent'the Easter holidays. He admitted that he made a motor trip to Matakana, and that.the ear in which he,travelled was driven by the woman to whom he had sold it last year. He had also been out with the woman on other occasions. . . Be-examiried, witness gave details' of his business losses, and said, he had gone bankrupt ' . ' • . ; .; ... Threatened to Go..Banknrj>ti Lucy Helena Carder, the appellant, said the respondent nad written her a letter in which he threatened that if she "did not giye. "him. everything he wanted but of the house he would go bankrupt." Witness said she had seen her husband in the car every day before the case in the Magistrate's Court last April. His Honor said he had no doubt whatever what his decision should be. ■ The magistrate had reduced the maintenance order from £4 to £3. It was clear that Carder had no means at all, and all he could earn would be by getting employment. The money he had invested was shown to have gone almost completely in business losses, and the money from the sale of the car had also been absorbed in a business.

Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Costs were disallowed.