CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4473, 14 February 1917, Page 6

CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE.

CASE- BEFORE THE COURT. Before Mr W. A. Barton, S-.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning Aheiiata Mitchell (Mr. Willock), proceeded against her husband, John Mitchell (Mr Burnard) for failing to provide lier with adequate maintenance. Ahenata. Mitchell, complainant, gave evidence that she was married to defendant on September 4, 1914, and they lived togotlicr at Wairoa for some time when defendant commeiice<l abusing her and drove lier out of the. house. Defendant wanted’ control of the child and to educate him. When witness refused to give the child over defendant ordered Jior out of the house. The child owned a large quantity of land, and it was for this reason that defendant wanted the control of the boy. During this time the defendant was at times under the influence of liquor. Mr Willoek: As a result of these remands and cruelty you decided to leave? ’Witness: Yes. Mr Burnard: There lias been no suggestion of cruelty. 'l’o Hi? Worship: Defendant never asked witness to return, but had told her never to return again.

Witness said that -site- was getting £34 per annum from land interest and also £44 from an East Coast estate since she had left her husband. His Worship : You have also a. house at Nuliaka ? Witness: Yes. Air Burnard: Have you not a house and section at Te Hapara? Witness: Yes. It is the property of my son. Air Burnard; Did you not own a strip of land at Waihirere which was bought bv the Crown, and you received £112? Witness: Yes. I received £llß a few months’ ago. Air Burnard: How much does the Public- Trustee hold for your .son? Witness: About £3OO. Air Burnard : Did your husband not have to go to your late husband’s people and agree to take care of the child because of bis behaviour? Witness: Yes. He said that he would take him to AYairoa. Air Burnard : Is it- not a fact that your boy was disobedient to Lis stepfather ?

Witness: He was always obedient, and would assist defendant to do any work when wanted. Air Burnard : AVhen you decided to leave home your husband still asked you to remain? Witness: 1 was so disgusted with the way that lie had been treating me that I could not stay. Air Burnard: Did defendant notsend one of Ids brothers after you to ask you to go back and you refused? Witness: A’os. Air Burnard: Did not your husband come to you in January and ask you to go back? AA itness: No. He came and told me lie did not want me to go back. Did defendant not sleep at vour house that night?—A’es.

Did the defendant not come to youagain in Atare-h and ask you to come? back ? —A’es. Did you not baud him back the wedding ring and say "take that?’’—Yes; on account of his treatment of me there. Have vou enough money to live on? —No. His AA’orship: Do you have to pay rent ? Witness: No. J am living in my son’s house at Te Hapara. Are you satisfied that if you had desired defendant would have allowed you to have gone back to him? — Yes. Defendant gave evidence that lie did not drink when lie was living with the complainant. He was addicted to drink prior to tlieir marriage. AA 7itness said that lie came to Gisborne in January, 1914, and saw bis wife and told her that lie had come to try and make some arrangement. - Complainant refused to go with him, saying that the sight of him was killing her. Witness saw her again at Te Arai in March ’and asked her to come back. Complainant said she would not go back with him, but lie could stay with her. AVit-noss replied that bo could leave bis business and complainant took off her ring and gave it back to him saying that it- was the end of the whole affair. To Air Burnard: ’Witness said that he did not toll complainant to go away but when she left the room witness asked her to remain. Complainant had sufficeut means of support if she did not spend so much money on ATaori Inns. All- Burnard said that there was clearly no evidence to show that complainant had any excuse to leave the house and that there had been c/'j occasions when defendant bad askef lier to return. The question as to whether she was a destitute person is quite clear, for she lias an income of £BO per year and her son. also hail •i lame amount of money. Judgment was reserved, on account of evidence taken at Wairoa not coming to hand.