NATE ASS CASE REVIVED

Otago Witness, Issue 3596, 13 February 1923, Page 65

NATE ASS CASE REVIVED

A QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE

WELLINGTON, February 5. a trass, a marine dealer, was proceeded against by his wife in the Magistrate’s Court for maintenance and guardianship £ r< 4ers. Counsel for plaintiff said the parties ■had been living apart on a separation arranged in 1919, following on the case wherein Natrass was defendant in an action for seduction, and £2O per month maintenance was paid for some time, but this ceased early i n 1921. In April, 1922. fresh deeds were arranged whereby plaintiff was to receive certain benefits from a patent which defendant went to America to exploit. Payments made till November; they tnen ceased. Defendant returned to New Zealand at New Year, and plaintiff commenced proceedings to recover maintenance. Last l’riday the syndicate with which defendant, was connected paid up the maintenance due under the deed after being threatened with legal proceedings. Counsel said defendant had had a large number of valuable shares in a patent, yet the maintenance had been reduced from £2O to £lO monthly. Defendant, in evidence, said he had always been willing to maintain bis wife. He had exceeded his financial position. He denied that he was keeping the young woman who was concerned in the former proceedings. i Mr Watson, counsel for plaintiff, asked : “Where is she?” Defendant: She is living with my sister. You were deported from America, were you not ?— j hat’s a lie. I might make you prove what you say. Wero you not arrested and sent over <o the other side—lt’s a- lie. You were on.ee convicted in this court as a rogue and vagabond, were you not?— That’s another lie. You have got your knife into me, and you are only throwing mud. Don’t talk like that. I say you were convicted in this court for being a rogue and a vagabond.—And I say that it is a lie. Further similar cross-examination followed, and the magistrate interjected : “This man is quite capable of earning his living, and it is his duty to look after his wife and child before he looks after any other ladv. I order that he pays £3 per week for his wife and £1 for the child.” There was further discussion on the question of security, and decision on this point was held over for one month, defendant in the meantime to make an advance payment of £l6.