DAUGHTER’S BILL

Grey River Argus, 19 August 1931, Page 6

DAUGHTER’S BILL

| FATHER TO PAY. A claim for £6 Gs, by Sophia Low, ! midwife, Rnnanga, from James Swal--1 low, vroeer’s assistant, for fees duo i for boarding and the nursing of defendant ’s married daughter, Ida Cu- | sack, was heard by Mr W. Meldrum, \ S.M., at the sitting of the Magis|trate’s Court yesterday. The statement of claim set out that on January 124, 1929, Ida Cusack, daughter of the I defendant, James Swallow, was received into plaintiff’s nursing home at Runanga, and was boarded and nursed until February 4, 1929, and that Ida Cusack was accepted into the home of plaintiff by the authority of defendant, that he would pay the board and nursing charges, but that he had failed to pay same. Plaintiff was represented by Mr J. W. Hannan, and defendant by Mr T. F. Brosnan. The plaintiff stated that she had been called to Mrs Swallow’s residence, and was there asked by Mrs Swallow to attend her daughter for a confinement. Mrs Swallow had assur-1 ed witness that her husband would pay and witness then agreed to take I Mrs Cusack. Witness had then stated she could not take Mrs Cusack in, and her mother said she would take her to Rewa, and she left it at that. On January 24, 1929, after the pictures j had come out, she went to the front i j door of her residence, and Mrs Swal- ' low and Mrs Cusack were there. Mrs | j Cusack was very ill. Mrs Swallow, went for the doctor, but before he had | arrived, the child was born. Mrs Cu- I sack stopped twelve days, and the | claim included board and nursing at-j I tendance. The usual fee was £7 7s. | but witness had only charged her £6' 6s. Nothing had been paid off the ac-; count. Swallow visited the home; whilst hl? daughter was an inmate.' Witness had asked defendant for payment some four months later, and he had said he was “a bit pinched,” and promised to pay the following pay i day. Mrs Cusack had since lived with , her parents. To Mr Brosnan: She knew that Mrs ' father had to take her away from her husband. Mrs Cusack had I not explained that plaintiff should get I ,an order against her husband. She had been fully certain Mr Swallow J would pay. She knew that for the | other child of the marriage, which was . born at Nelson, no maternity fees had I 1 yet been paid. She had asked Mr j Naylor to collect the debt off Swallow, not off Mrs Cusack. She had not doubted Swallow’s word when he said he would pay. She had had no deal- , ings with Mrs Cusack whatsoever. 1

j Mr Brosnan said there had been no arrangement with Swallow, and he only came into it three or four months later. He knew nothing about arrangements prior to the birth of the child. The Magistrate: Mrs Swallow went to the house and said her husband would pay. The question was whether Mrs Swallow had authority to do so.

I What was plaintiff to do? Tt was I more or less a family business. Plaintie gave the service to defendant’s | household, and defendant said he was ■hard up and offered to pay the daughter’s board. It was an urgent case. Was plaintiff to be the loser? Defendant said he did not know of Mrs Low comino- to his house, nor of his wife taking the daughter to the nursing home. Mrs Low asked witness to pay, and ho had replied that he had enough to do to keep the girl and the two children. He would like Ito see Mrs Low receive payment, but he could not make payment. He had not promised to pay. If Mrs Swallow said witness would pay it was without his authority. An order had been made against Cusack for 30s a week for the maintenance of his wife and children, but she had only received £8 since January, and the husband was in arrears to the extent of £5O or £GO. He had received no account from Mrs Low, only the summons. Ho saw the letter from Mr Naylor addressed to i Cusack, care of Swallow.

To Mr Hannan; The police had ordered that he should take the girl away from Cusack, who had been away about two and a-half years. He would not object to his daughter having a nurse. He was objeetipg to paying the fees, as he had not .promised to pay, having made no arrangement with the nurse. He could not go against his wife’s action in taking the girl to the nursing home. When the girl had a husband, he should not have to pay. Arthur Naylor, general agent, said Mrs Low gave him an account to collect, which was addressed to Mrs Cusack, care of Mr Swallow, Runanga.

Mrs Mary Swallow, wife of defendant, said she met Mrs Low at witness’s house, when her daughter asked plaintiff to take her in. Her daughter had also pointed out that she had no ntoney, but would give it to her when she could. When the maintenance order was taken out against her husband, Mrs Cusack told plaintiff to put her claim in. Ida Cusack stated that Mrs Low said she would take her in. She thought her husband should pay. There was no mention of her father being made responsible. She told Mrs Low to put the claim in, but the latter did not say anything. Mr Hannan; Why did you not go down and see Mrs Low yourself? Witness; I couldn’t. I wasn’t keeping well. I was taking fits. That’s all.

A member of the Court staff gave evidence that £25 had been paid this year under the maintenance order. The Magistrate, after reviewing the evidence, described the case as somewhat unsatisfactory. One such point was the statement of Mrs Cusack, that since January she had received only £B, under the maintenance order, whereas the Court records showed that £25 had been paid this year. The question was whether taking all the circumstances into consideration, the evidence of Mrs Low should not be accepted as being the more probable. He thought he must accept that and give judgment for plaintiff, under the * ‘equity and good conscience” clause of the Act, for £6 6s, with court costs £1 Is, solicitor’s fee £2 9s, and witnesses’ expenses 13s 6d, a total of £lO 7s 6d.