FAMILY'S MAINTENANCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22099, 3 May 1935, Page 14

FAMILY'S MAINTENANCE

APPEAL.BY HUSBAND COURT VARIES ORDERS SEPARATION TO CONTINUE [from our own correspondent] HAMILTON, Thursday Lengthy evidence, on the lines of that given in previous proceedings, was heard before Mr. Justice Fair in the Hamilton Supreme Court to-day in the case in which Dominico Richard Russo, rabbit dealer, Cambridge (Mr. Schramm), appealed against decisions made in tlio Hamilton Magistrate's Court. In these decisions, Mr. A. L. Paterson, S.M., granted appellant's wife, Alma Rachel Russo (Mr. King), separation, guardianship and maintenance orders with respect to herself and maintenance orders with respect to the two children. Under the maintenance orders Russo was required to pay £3 a week and £IOO for past maintenance. "Unable to Keep Up Payments" The disputes between Russo and his wife have been before the Court in different forms since October, 1932, when they separated. Giving evidence, Russo said ,ho was in indifferent health and was unable to do heavy work. He denied that his conduct had caused his wife to him. He was financially unable to keep up th-} payments ordered by the Lower Court. Cross-examined, appellant said he had nothing to say regarding his wife's conduct since she left him. Ho denied that he transferred his business to his brother Angclo when his wife took proceedings against him. He had no business to transfer. His brother employed him at the rato of £2 a week after his wife left him. To His Honor, appellant said that what interest ho had in the business was transferred to his brother, although everything he had was mortgaged. Angclo Russo gave evidence concerning his brother's financial position. He said he had never seen the appellant drunk. His Honor's Decision In giving judgment, His Honor said there was evidence of llusso's drunkenness and an inference of persistent cruelty. Appellant's conduct in transferring his business to his brother exposed him to the suspicion that he was making it as difficult as possible to make his wife payments. His Honor said he considered appellant wan in a position to earn something, although he was not satisfied appellant was in a position to pay past maintenance forthwith. His Honor upheld the separation order, and varied the maintenance orders to 25s with respect to the wife and 25s with respect to the two children. Russo was also ordered to pay £SO past maintenance within 12 months. He was also ordered to pay costs and witnesses' expenses in ) connection with the case.