MAINTENANCE CASES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15504, 10 January 1914, Page 5

MAINTENANCE CASES.

A WINNER AT THE RACES.

ORDER MUST BE OBEYED. VARIATION REFUSED. A ncmber of maintenance cases were dealt with at the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. C. C- Kettle, S.M. Walter Palethorpe Barnett, who has been several times before the Court for failing to comply with an order for the maintenance of his child, again made an appearance, and also asked that the order might be varied. Mr. Towle appeared for Barnett and Mr. Lundon for complainant. In the course of Mr. Lundon's crossexamination the defendant admitted that since he was last before the Court on December 12 he had received £5 10s for acting as a special constable and £3 10s for other work, though he had not paid anything towards his child's support. Mr. Lundon: Did you not get a dividend on the first day of the races? Defendant: If I did it has nothing to do with you. I collected dividends for other people. Mr. Lundon remarked that he went to the 6ame window as Barnett to collect a dividend, and Barnett remarked to another man that he had backed six nersDefendant: I said that to pull your leg. You took it all in. I did not back six winners, but I did back one or two. Continuing, Barnett admitted that he was a member of the Auckland Racing Club, for which the fee was five guineas yearlij, "but I can explain that," he added. His Worship: Your explanations are not i worth anything. I have had a long ex- j perience of you, and I have given you chances and more latitude than most people have. I will dismiss your application to vary the order, and convict you for a breach of the order. The sentence will be imprisonment for three months, but will be suspended for seven days to afford you an opportunity to give your surety for £100 and find two others in £50 each that you will comply with the order. HUSBAND AND WIFE. An application for a separation and a maintenance order was made by Mrs. Ward (Mr. Lundon) against her husband, Ihomas Ward (Mr. M. D. Mahoney). Mr. Mahoney asked Tor an adjournment for a tortnight, which was opposed by Mr, Xjuiiaou. Mrs. Ward was willing to live with her husband, said Mr. Lundon, but he ] refused to live with her. Since the case was Jast before the Court she had been taken j to Court on a charge that she was not a fit person to have control of the one child. The case was heard before another magistrate, who had reserved his decision, but had not yet given it. At the hearing not a shred of evidence had been given against Mrs- Ward's character. Ward said that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the case mentioned by Mr. Lundon, which had been brought solely by the police, and he had been surprised when he had been subpeened as a witness. He had once informed the police that a boarder in the house was supplying liquor to the complainant, but that was all he had told them. Mr. Kettle remarked that it seemed most extraordinary that the police had taken the proceedings without receiving any complaint against the woman. Mr. Lundon here consented to an adjournment for one week, which Mr. Mahoney accepted. . Later in the morning Mr. E. C. Cutten, ,SM., gave his decision in the Police Court case, which involved an application to have the child admitted. to an Industrial Home. His Worship said that as the matter was already under the consideration of another magistrate in the course of other proceedings, he would dismiss the application without prejudice. SEPARATION GRANTED. Ellen J. Everson (Mr. Mulgan) asked for a separation order and maintenance against her husband, Charles S. Everson (Mr. Lundon). In the course of her evidence the complainant said that she had been married lor 24 years, and had had sixteen children. Eight were still alive, but only two were working. She had had her husband prohibited, as he had been drinking for years, but that was the only time she had taken him to Court. Owing to the strike he had been out of work, and she had gone out to work for the children. Some two months ago he left her saying that he was going to the gumfields, and he had only sent her £1 since. He was capable of earning £4 to £5 a week.

Mr. Lundon asked for an adjournment, and said that the man had sent the first pound he got after securing work to his wife. He was getting £8 a month, and had asked for a draw of £5 to send to his wife.

His Worship held that there was no need for an adjournment. He granted the separation order, and made an order for £2 10s weekly for the maintenance of the wife and family.