POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21638, 6 February 1934, Page 13

POLICE COURT

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) MAINTENANCE. Daniel John Wheeler was proceeded against on a complaint for maintenance and guardianship orders on the grounds of wilful failure to maintain, Mr 0. C. Stevens appearing for the complainant. This matter was previously before the court, and His Worship made an order for maintenance of £1 a week. 1 ast maintenance was fixed at £lO, ana costs (£1 Is) were, allowed. The question of guardianship was reserved. Ernest James Rolinson wa charged with disobedience of a maintenance order, the arrears under which amounted to £l6 18s to January 1. Air L. R. Simpson appeared for the complainant, and Air W. H. Carson foi the defendant.—Mr Simpson said that the parties were divorced, and the order was in respect of two children of the former marriage. The wife had asked for no maintenance when the divorce went through.—After the . defendant had been examined as to his position, the Magistrate remitted the arrears over £lO, and varied the order as follows :—From January 1 to June 30, 30s per week; from July 1 to December 31, 15s a week. The information for disobedience was dismissed. Albert Lucas Herum was proceeded against by his wife on a complaint foi maintenance on the grounds of persistent cruelty and wilful failure to maintain. A complaint for a separation order was maintained. —Mr O. G. Stevens appeared for the complainant, and Mr W. D. Taylor for the defendant.— Mr Stevens said that the parties had not been married very long but tho complainant’s married life had been an unhappy one.—Evidence was given bv the complainant, alleging defendant’s failure to maintain her, and stating that she found it impossible to live with her husband. —Mr laylor submitted that on the facts there were no grounds on which the court could make an order for maintenance. The complainant had applied- for a separation order, but this was withdrawn, and he thought the inference to be taken was that complainant realised there was not sufficient evidence to justify the grounds for separation. The defendant had maintained her to the best of lus advantage.—The Magistrate said that he could not find that the grounds for persistent cruelty were proved, and the question of maintenance was held over, the case being adjourned until March 12, defendant to pay 15s a week in the meantime.