MAINTENANCE CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 March 1933, Page 3

MAINTENANCE CASE

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED INCOME

Au allegation was made at. the Grevmouth Magistrate's Court yesierday’ that the defendant in a maintenance case would not pay unless forced to do so, and that, at a time when he was supposed to have nothing whatever ho was in receipt of an income of about £2OOO per year, and was fined £lOO for non-payment of in-come-tax. The defendant was Claud Frederick Ryland, now of Wellington, and he was charged with, disobeying an order, made at Greymouth on June 18, 1923. for the payment of £B/6/8 per month towards the maintenance of his wife. The arrears to October 9, 1932, amounted to £49/6/8. When the case was first called at Greymoufli, three months ago, Mr A. M. Jamieson appeared for defendant, and asked that the maintenance order be reduced to 10/- per week, and the arrears remitted. Under the circumstances, he said, it was utterly impossible for defendant to pay £2 per week, and it would not help his wife if lie’were sent to prison. Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., said that, according to defendant’s evidence, lie could not pay even 10/- per week, and ho asked for the cancellation, or suspension of the order, for a period. He stated that he thought, he would be earning money by the end of. February. The Maintenance Officer said that the wife was in hospital. The S.M. remarked that the hospital bill was £B6/5/-, and was increasing. The wife was destitute. Mr Jamieson said that defendant would come very near to the definition of a. destitute person. He was quite agreeable, to pay' when he was able to do so.

The S.M. adjourned the case for three months.

When it was again called, to-day, the S.M. read the evidence of defendant, which was taken at Wellington. Mr J. W. Hannan, who appeared for the wife, said that she was a cripple. It, was quite apparent, from the Court records, that defendant had never been on time, and would not pay unless forced to do so. The same thing occurred in 1928 and 1930, when he was supposed to have nothing whatever, and lie was fined £lOO for non payment of income-tax. His income in 1928, 1929, and 1930 averaged about £2OOO, yet he was in arrears with his maintenance payments.

Reading the evidence of defendant, the S.M. remarked that, he was apparently in trouble through the liquidation of a company, but he was making a start in business again, and expected to be earning money by the end of last month. Mr. Jamieson said that he had no offer to make. He pointed out that defendant’s evidence had not been contradicted. He was penniless, and had no work. A letter had been received, this morning, from defendant’s solicitor, setting out Ryland’s position, and since December 15, he had earned only 16/- per week. He had done a quantity of preliminary work in connection with the incorporation of three companies. He owed £BO to the Christchurch Hospital Board, but that body had agreed to accept payment when Ryland was in a position to make it. He had been writing some magazine articles. If the companies materialised, his position would be much improved. He expected to be earning £8 per week by April. Mr. Jamieson submitted that, on the evidence, there was no failure to maintain, within the meaning of th e Destitute Persons’ Act, and he suggested that the case be further adjourned. Mr. Hannan said' he supposed that nothing else could be done, but to adjourn the case until after April.

The S.M. said that any other course would mean sending Ryland to gaol, which would make matters worse. He adjourned the case until May 1.