HASTINGS COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 221, 1 September 1932, Page 8

HASTINGS COURT

(Before Mi 8. L. Patterson, S.M.) MAINTENANCE CASE Ruth w are made application for separation and maintenance orders against her husband, William Ware, on the grounds of alleged persistent cruelty and failure to maintain. The application was opposed. Evidence was given by the complainant, who admitted that the alleged cruelty was more ‘ ‘ mental than physical. ” She said that the parties had agreed to separate, and her husband had agreed to pay £2 5s a week maintenance. He made one payment of £2 5s and then reduced his next payments to £1 15s. Later he made a further reduction to £1 and since April last had paid nothing. No evidence was called for the defendant, counsel pointing out that it was contemplated taking divorce proceedings at the November sessions of the Supreme Court at Napier. The defendant denied the suggestion of cruelty.

His Worship said that it was quite clear that the defendant had wilfully failed to maintain his wife. He had agreed to pay £2 5s a week and had actually made a payment, but he later stopped all payment without giving any reasonable cause. The law was quite clear on this point, and as he had wilfully failed to maintain his wife she was entitled to a separation order. He made the order accordingly. Regarding the question of maintenance His Worship said that as the parties had agreed upon £1 a week he would make an order for this amount, the defendant having to pay the arrears amounting to £22 at the rate of 10 s week, in addition to the current maintenance. Costs totalling £6 3s were allowed complainant.