THE RICHARDS CASE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 68, 21 March 1931, Page 10

THE RICHARDS CASE

SUBSTANTIAL ORDERS

COMPLAINANT SUCCEEDS

After a lengthy judgment in which he found for the complainant on practically all the contentious points raised during the case, Mr. T. B. M'Neil, S.M., yesterday afternoon made orders for separation, maintenance, and guardianship iv favour of Hincmoa Corelli Charlotte Richards against her husband David James Kichards. Maintenance was fixed at £9 a week for the wife, and £1 a week for the child. "I have come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances I can give no other judgment than find that the defendant has been guilty of persistent cruelty to his wife and pn that ground alone I would be justified in making the orders asked for," said Mr. M'Neil. "I also find that the sum of about £160 the complainant has had from the time she left her husband up ja the present time was not sufficient. roP the maintenance of a wife and child considering the station in life of the complainant prior to her marriage. Of course, counsel for the defendant submits that the wife deserted the husband, but for the reasons I have stated I do not think she would have been justified in going back to him." Dealing with the question of the amount of maintenance the Magistrate said that for the purposes of the case he was going to treat the husband's income as being £1400 a year. It was the general rule in cases in which there were no children to allow the wife one-third of the husband's income, although this rule was not absolute. He had carefully considered the position, and in this connection wanted it to be understood that he was not visiting upon the defendant anything in the way of punitive damages for his past conduct. He would fix the maintenance for the wife at £9 a week, and allow £50, the maximum allowed under the Act, for past maintenance. The maximum amount allowed under the Act for the maintenance oE a child was £1 Is a week, aud the child's maintenance would be fixed at £1 a week, with £50 for past maintenance. In view of the temperament of the defendant and the threats he had made in the past of doing away with his property and committing suicide the Magistrate said he would make an order that the defendant enter into a bond with the Public Trustee of £200, which was the maximum amount allowed under the Act, for the due performance of both, the orders. The complainant would also be allowed the custody of the child, and costs amounting to £31 10s. Mr. O. C. Mazengarb, who appeared for the defendant, said that in view of the possibility of an appeal, or an application for re-hearing on the grounds of fresh evidence being obtained, he would probably make an application to the Magistrate at a later date to fix security for appeal. He did not believe in jumping up straight after a judgment had been delivered and asking for security to be fixed. The Magistrate: "It is all right, Mr. Atazengarb, I am quite used to that." Mr. G. G. G. Watson and Mr. P. Shorland appeared for tho complainant.