MAINTENANCE CASE

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 11324, 30 September 1930, Page 5

MAINTENANCE CASE

HARPER v. HARPER

DEFENDANT, TO PAY £2 10s A WEEK

ALSO 10s PER WEEK OFF ARREARS

A , maintenance ; case, in which Violet, ..Harper. (Mr D. Ohrisp), proceeded against Erie Martin Harper (Mr. Beaufoy) came before Mr. P. ,H- Harper, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, and at tho conclusion .‘defendant was convicted .and .sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, warrant to be suspended oh payment of current maintenance of £2 ,10s a week and 10s weekly off the arrears. Defendant, in the box. said he had been paid. nothing the past twelve months. He had earned some money but had not been paid. It was in connection with Native business. Ho had been in partnership with Messrs McKee and Kav, but that , partnership had been dissolved, on April 20. At present he was doing nothing. After the partnership had been closed his mother and defendant had paid defendant’s debts between them.., He had a house which, had' been sold up iliy the .Union Bank because he was unable to finance, it on account of a charging order made by the Magistrate, as he was unable to pay £4 10s a week. His business was a general commission-agent and-a sharebroker- He intended to go to Auckland, where Be had good prospects of a position. If. allowed reasonable time he could- pay. He recognised his obligations to his wife.. His child was thirteen years of age on Tilly‘6 last year. One of the reasons why ho wanted .to go to Auckland was to finish the child’s education in Auckland. He had relatives, in. Auckland. To Mr Chrisp: His share of the, partnership when he sold out was £4OO which, included all .assets. Since then he had been paying wages and keeping his child- He had not got any money at the present time. His- mother owned bis Packard car. She had owned it for three or four months. She had also owned bis furniture since that time.

Mr Chrisp: When the order was reduced from £4 to £2 10s you agreed to pay the arrears?—No. My mother made the agreement. She said the order bad been reduced from £4 to £2 10s and she raid some debts, and be thought, the arrears of maintenance. Then you gave her the furniture as security?—l thought that was lair, as mv mother had to pay. You said you are unable to pay on account of the charging order. Don’t vou remember coming to our office and we said the order could he removed? . _-. Defendant: I tried the Public Trust and they turned me down. Even a banking official said that it the charging order had been taken off. the house could not he financed. Air. Chrisp: Well, you didn’t tell the Court that. How much will you get from the Native business?—- It might he £IOO and it might be £2OO. Recently an order owing by you lias been paid?—Yes, a judgment summons for £S 10s. How much has been paid out re-cently?—-As much as I have money to pay with. That’s no answer. —I ve paid creditors who issued summons notices- When I can’t pay my mother fact everyone has been paid but your wife?—No. _ T , Why don’t You pay her?—l want a little time. How' much do you owe ?—I can t say; she .will be paid when I have the money. Isn’t it a fact you are parting with all your assets,- and that your wire j, left?—l must have paid in over £BOO and it’s been too much for me having to pay £4 10s a week, keep a child, and keep myself. . Mr Beaufoy: .Have you paid many debts latelv.?—Very few. I only paid £B. Mr Chrisp said the • defendant was a man who never paid anything to bis wife until he was summoned. He was unable to say how much he still owed to his creditors. He owed substantial sums, and the greater part of bis indebtedness had been paid off, but a substantial sum was still owing to lus wife. He was still running round town in his car. Counsel could see no reason for nonpayment of the order. His another had got the furniture and the car and the assets were dwindling away. The purpose of the charging order was to protect the claim for maintenance. It was never intended to realise on .the property at once. Defendant should bo compelled to keep up his payments unless ho could show cause otherwise. Mr Beaufoy said defendant was quite willing to pay but-it was impossible. His mother had repeatedly paid. He intended leaving to go ,to Auckland and one of his principal objects was to finish his child s education. If bis mother were , repaid all she had advanced, the car and the furniture would not cover it by a The, Magistrate: What are the arrears? v • ~ , Mr Ohrisp: £C4 11s lid. The Magistrate said it seemed to him that “the defendant had not made any honest attempt to fulhl his obligations. The order had been varied in May last but . defendant : had mado no definite, attempt to nay anything. All' his other liabilities on summonses and judgment summons had been met by his mother Jt seemed as if .defendant were deliberately putting the liability due to his wife on one side. He (Has Worship) was satisfied defendant was not in a position to pay the amount owing at present. He said ho was going- to take up a. position in Auckland. He (the Magistrate) thought it best that defendant should pay tho current instalment and a certain amount off the arrears each week. The order is £2-10s. Defendant would be convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, : warrant to be suspended on payment of the order and .the. payment of 10s .weekly off the arrears. Costs £1 11s were . allowed, - -•- -•-