MAINTENANCE ORDERS.

NZ Truth, Issue 98, 4 May 1907, Page 6

MAINTENANCE ORDERS.

Two Pitiable Cases.

A Christchurch tanner named Charles Close, who has been at variance with his wife for some time, has been before the Court twice. The first /time the leather headed beauty was- placed . on the stand he was charged with bei-ng guilty of persistent crueltyj towards the poor woman, ami was convicted and dealt with as he well ,'. deserved. On Tuesday last the brute was charged with neglecting the complainant inasmuch as he didn't provide her with adequate means of support. The fellow had previously been ordered to find sureties to keep the peace and- a separation order was now asked for. as well as support for wife and' three children. All 'Close -did was to get lawyer galley to write' her asking her to call at the office m orxhr that some arrangements about support, should be made. Beak Bis-hop saiid the callous coon should have sent money direct to his wife ; tbe \*<ri tins' of a letter m the way suggested was -absurd. The defendant said 'lvc got S2 2s a week m good times,, but he really only averaged Unity 1.0')... The tannery business was very Irregular owing to rain and shortness of hides. Lawyer McCoraiel at this stage put the complainant m the box to say, what tlie defendants' screw really was. She said that the coon "had previously offered a quid a week. When .they we're living together her husband save her two quid a week. Re did a bit of 'book-making-. Mr Bishop : Oh, well I-can't malce an order on money made 'by bookmaking. The witness went on to say that her darling hivfrby had tried to get her turned out of her house, and to stop any little credtt that she had got. ' • , • . In the result the S.M. made an order that the woman should no longer cohabit with Close, and that he pay 25s a week towards the support of herself and ch.iLdrejr. It is a pitiable thing to see vou-n-a: couples before the court desiring .a judicial separation. Incompati bility of temper seams to be the usual reason, but drink is , another that is frequently advanced. One of these cases, unhappily too plentiful, was -before Mr Bishop just after the ' above case, and and he commented on the you'th guineas of the couple. Francis Mary Bedford wanted to be separated from; Joseph Bedford, a carpenter, and desired maintenance. It was , adduoed that Bedford got £2 IQs a week, and that, there was a two-yiear-oM child 'as the -result of the unfortunate union. Drink was statsd to be the cause of tbe trouble ; defendant /dra'jk like blazes and could give many an old toper a big start m the absorption of s^wankey. The wife tired of his constant guzzling and polioe-courted him. The facts were admitted by .Mr Malley, and the S.M. said it was a pity that some other method had not been adopted to settle the differences of the pair. However, ho would make an order of separation and also order defendant to pay -a, (fluid a week maintenance..