ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7083, 4 December 1929, Page 3

ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE

Towards Maintenance Of Their Father ORDERS MADE AND APPEAL MENTIONED Several of the married children of an aged farmer residing at Rongotea were called upon at the Fedlding Magistrate’s Court yesterday to show cause why they should not contribute a matter of 2s 6d per week towards the maintenance of their father.

The complainant was Evan Vallender of Rongotea, and the defendants Jeanetta. Armott, married woman (Kaimatarau), Florence Claasen, married woman (Rongotea), Susan Mossop, married woman (Rongotea), Percy Vallender, settler (Rongotea), Evan Vallander junr., settler (Rongotea), all sons and daughters of complainant. Mr R. M. Watson, S.M. was on the Bench while Mr J. Graham appeared for the complainant and Mr A. M. Ongley for four of the defendants. In opening the case, counsel said that complainant .was 74 years of age, unable to work, suffering from indifferent health and in receipt of the maximum pension of £45 10s per annum. He resided with his youngest daughter, Miss Annie Vallender, who cared for him, at Rongotea, in a house which she had purchased, paying £6O down and leaving ..the balance on mortgage. The mortgages were , falling due and it was impossible for complainant and his daughter to raise the money, so an appeal had been made t-o each of his sons and married daughters for a contribution of 3s per week each. It had come as a shock to counsel to learn that, with. the, ex--ception .of four of. defendant’s children, -they • had refused to . enter upon the arrangement which, in .the nature of' things, could, not last. long.

In giving evidence, complainant said that he had been a farmer at Rongotea, but had lost his, farm aud all his assets in the slump. The only asset he had was a life insurance policy which had a. gross surrender value of £167 9s, against which was a.loan debt of £149 15s. He had, b.een endeavouring to obtain, some assistance from his married, children and was living with his single daughter Annie, who was 35 years of age. This daughter had purchased a house, paying £6O down and leaving a balance of £640, the interest and other payments requiring £SO per year. The house wag not worth what it had been purchased for and he could not even get the first mortgage of £4OO renewed. Four of the family had/com seated to pay 2s 6d per week each while one, who lost a son in ■ the Himifangi fire, was not in a position to contribute anything. The other five, who -were named as the defendants, had refused to pay. They had an idea that if they paid, the money would be used to wipe out the mortgage on the house, which, in their opinion, -would then go to their sisiter Annie. This was not so. His son Evan had offered to take' complainant in, but he required and needed the attention of his daughter, and would bo much more comfortable living as ho was with the financial help he asked for.

To Mr Ongley: He had at one time farmed extensively iu the Bongotea and di-spo-sed of his property at a time wheu the slump caused him to lose everything. It was not true that he had liked to live well and had been a frequent attender at race meetings .

invested money in Tasmanian sweepstakes. He had not been on a racecourse for thirty and possibly fifty years, but admitted that he sent away, when he had the money, for a ticket in “Tatts.” He denied that his reason for not asking assistance from his daughter, Mrs Thompson, was because he had borrowed money from Thompson and had not paid it back. He had borrowed money from Thompson but had not squandered it, as counsel suggested. His son Evan had offered to take complainant to live with him but could no.t contribute to his upkeep. As far as defendant knew, his married daughters had nothing nor had his son Evan. He had originally asked for 3s a week each but reduced this to 2s 6d an-d then some had offered Is a week. Even though Percy Vallender had an English car it might not be his own and in any case it did not suggest that he was well off. Arnott had two. oi three motor vehicles.

To Mr Graham. The rent of the house amounted to £1 per week which included three acres of land.

The Magistrate here remarked that he considered that complainant was inclined to live rather. extravagantly. What did he want with three acres of land, or to keep three cows?

Counsel submitted that apart from the issues regarding the house, its mortgages, etc., complainant was entitled to -adequate maintenance and the 17s 6d per week pension was a very long way from being adequate. Complainant was entitled to ask his children to contribute towards his support.

The Magistrate agreed that that was 60 but he thought that the old man had big ideas. He suggesed that the parties might compromise ■on an amount from Is to 2s 6d a week.

Mr, Ongley said that his clients were quite prepared to support their father but were not prepared to contribute towards the mainenance of a six-roomed house and three acres of land. He would show iu evidence that bis clients were devoid'of ability to pay.'

The Magistrate suggested that Mi -Ongley’s clients agree to pay Is 6d a week before the Court went into the sordid details.

Mr Ongley said that the feeling was that his clients would not pay for the upkee-p of the charges on the house. In going into the question of the needs of the household which comprised complainant, hi-s daughter and a child, it was learned that the three cows kept on the place returned £62 or £63 last year, averaging about £2l per cow, after taking out milk for the household.

No agreement could be reached, so defendants gave evidence as to their means.

Evan Vallender said he farmed a leasehold of 60 acres at Eongotea for which he paid £2 17s 6d per- acre. He was married with two. children. .H. 6

bought bis stock on mortgage and milking: plant, on the hir,o purchase system. Neither had been paid for. The cream cheques, less payment of rent, for July to October, averaged up to £8 for twenty-five cows. Stores and charges on account of the stock and milking machine mortgages, were taken out of the cream cheques as well as the rent and this accounted for the low net receipts. He had not been able to contribute to his father’s support but had offered to ■accommodate his father in his home. In reply to the Magistrate witness admitted that he had not gone into wha it would cost to keep his father and did mot know whether it would cost as much as 5s a week.

In reply to Mr Graham witness said lie was prepared to pay whatever the Court ordered.

The defendant, Mrs Arnott, said that her husband was a builder and contractor while ■ witness and her son managed a farm of 90 acres on which they ran- seven co<ws, also sheep. She never got any money, from her husband and she had no money on her own account. To the Magistrate: Neither the cows nor . sheep: were * hers. The cream cheques came to her up till last month and the money was used to run the house. They had had the farm for 17 years but she had, not. always had the milk cheques. , For some .years she had had the milk cheques, just to keep the house going and that was not sufficient. There were 300 sheep on the farm but she got nothing out of the stock.

To Mr Graham: They had two cars, one which went and one which didn’t. They had been industrious and her husband was in a-pretty good position. To Mr Ongley: Witness could not recall when' she first received the cream Cheque in her name. It was correct to say that she had received the .cream cheque for the pas,t three years but there was not sufficient to pay tho housekeeping account. Florence Claasen said that the only money she ever had was £lO she got from her father on the morning of the day on which she go<t married and she had to get her clothes out of that and it "was a dear time—ten years ago.” Her husband .had a 90 acre farm which was leased from his father. The stock was leased from her father-in-law also. To Mr Graham: The rent was about £2OO per annum. She got money from her husband when he had it . The sole reason for. the ‘ ‘ whole hubbub ” was that .wit ness and the others did not like her father living with their unmarried sister..

■ Susan- Mossop, said she was the wife of a farmer and had four children. She had not money of her own and did not receive. any allowance from her husband. • ■ ■

To Mr Graham: It. was a returned soldier’s farm of 60 acres. Her husband bought the stores and she never received any money. An offer had been made to contribute Is 3d per week provided her father-did not'live with her sister Annie.

The Magistrate decided that Mrs Arnott was in a position to contribute Is 6d and made an order accordingly. Mrs Claasen was ordered to pay Is and the same amount was fixed in the case of Mrs Mossop. An order was made in the case of Evan Valle mi er for the payment of Is 6d and a llko amount in tho case of . Percy Vallender. Defendants were also, ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. Security for appeal was fixed-at £8 8s in each of . tho cases concerning Mrs Arnott, Mrs Claasen, Mrs Mossop and Evan y-allen.de'-.