POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19003, 27 July 1925, Page 2

POLICE COURT

MONDAY, JULY 27. (Before Dir H. AY. Bundle, S.M.) WANTED HER CHILD. Joseph Grigg (Mr Barrowclough) was proceeded against by his wife on a complaint for maintenance and guardianship orders. Mr Irwin appeared lor the complainant. Mr Irwin said that the parties did not got on well in 192 J soon after their marriage. Thev wore separated in January, 1924, and later a child was born. Grigg could not he found at the time, hut”ho was found later. • Then Airs Grigg got into some trouble, and Mas in a home at Christchurch. Latch she I had been released, hut in the meantime the child had been placed with a sister-in-law of Grigg. Complainant now visited the child as often as sho vas permitted, and sho asked lor a guardianship order. . „ Mr Barrowclough said that the lather denied what had been said about him. The child was living where he lived when he was in Dunedin. That was a far hotter home for the child than the mother could provide. There was, too, a suggestion that she was not a fit and proper person to have control or the child. , „„ To Air Barrowclough: There was another child when Grigg married her. Witness told him sho had much more monev than sho really did have. . Air Irwin: She got a husband on false pretences. , , ~ , The Magistrate: That docs not reflect credit on your client, Air Barrowclough. , , , Air Barrowclough suggested, amid laueditor that if he were allowed to proceetl ho could show that the marriage was more than a financial transaction. Witness admitted having got money from her husband’s friends by telling them she wanted it to get him out of gaol. That was what she was sent to tho home for, not for stealing a ring. To Air Irwin witness said the husband had served time for theft and other offences.

Mrs Jackson, with whom complainant js staving, gave evidence. Sho said complainant was her guest, and could slop as long an she pleased. She had behaved herself very well in the home, and to witness had always been truthful and straightforward. Joseph Grigg gave evidence. He said it was' untrue to say that he could not bo found when the child was horn. Ho came back to Dunedin immediately, and Ms brother and sister-in-law knew all the time whore ho was. They wore not approached. Air Barrowclough presented a statement by Ensign Coombs. Tho Magistrate said that in this matter Ms sympathies were with tho mother. The father did not _ deserve the slightest consideration, since he (the magistrate) was not satisfied that he had the slightest interest in the well-being of either tho child or the mother. "He would certainly, all tilings being equal, give the control of the child to the mother; but be must consider tho child’s welfare, and ho thought it would not he proper to make an order for guardianship till the mother had a home of her own. The matter would be adjourned sine die, and in tho meantime tho mother must have tho fullest access to the child. When the mother could provide a good homo her application would he favorably considered. STEP-FATHER’S RESPONSIBILITIES. A man was proceeded against for a maintenance order in respect of six children. Mr Brasch, for defendant, said that the children concerned tvore those of defendant’s wife’s previous husband, whom she had divorced, and who was now serving a sentence m gaol. Counsel contended that, while there was certainly a legal duty on the preseuu defendant, there was no m-iral duty., Ho suggested that the legislation intended that when a man married a woman and prevented her from maintaining herself and any clniLm she might have, he was resp .inutile. but in this case tho children had been kept by tho State prior to this second marriage, so the State was no worse off. There had been no attempt so Mr to make the father of the children contribute something. Probably one would bo made on Ms release. in Ms evidence, said that lie was earning £4 Gs a we A, hut had financial obligations which absoibed it all. Ho declared that ho had no knowledge of Ills obligations concerning tho children when lie married. The Magistrate said this was a difficult case to decide. The man should, of course, have made careful inquiries regarding Ms responsibilities, but it was possible he was unaware of them at the time. It was ridiculous that defendant should ho placed in the same position as the natural father; still, the mother was legally responsible, and the step-father had now to carry on that responsibility. An order for 5s a week would be made in respect of the youngest child only. His Worship jidcled that, should an order ho made against- tho natural father, the present defendant could apply for cancellation. Mr Brasch asked that publication of the names,in tho case should bo prohibited. His Worship said it was not a case for prohibition, but ho suggested to the Press that, as the matter was not of wide interest, the names might he deleted. DRUNKENNESS. Robert Hewlett, who did not appear, was fined the amount of his bail (20s). A first offender was fined 10s, in default six hours’ imprisonment.