UNDESERVED PUNISHMENT.

Otago Witness, Volume 1851, Issue 3809, 15 March 1927, Page 57

UNDESERVED PUNISHMENT.

IMPRISONED FOR ARREARS.

GISBORNE, March 11. A remarkable story of an elderly man’s imprisonment for two weeks, portion of a term of six months’ hard labour imposed for allegedly being in arrears with his wife’s maintenance when up to the time of his arrest he had complied with the terms it the court’s order, was unfolded in the Police Court to-day. The action was one in which Frederick Brougham Whitmore Bousfield proceeded against his wife for an order of release from gaol. For the wife, Mr Nolan stated that he received telegraphed instructions that lie must contest the petition. It was not clear to him what he was to do, and he therefore intended applying for an adjournment pending further advice. For the husband, Mr Brosnahan stated that the proceedings were unique, as it was the first action taken under the 1926 Act, in which a person could obtain relief from inequitable imprisonment. Vir« tually, the action was tantamount to a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court, but it differed in that the court did not have to find that a man had been wrongfully or illegally imprisoned, but whether he was inequitably imprisoned, and, if so, it could grant an order of release. The facts were that in September, 1924, an order for maintenance at the rate of 30s a wee]j was made against Bousfield. He paid the money regularly. The following year he applied for a variation of tlie order, and on someone’s advice he paid no money pending a decision. The case was protracted over several months, during which arrears amounting to £75 accumulated. In August his wife issued a summons under the Destitute Persons Act for the arreas. and as Bousfield was then at Waipiro Bay and that there had been no provision in the Act for applying to have his evidence heard, hc° could obtain no redress. An order was made against Bousneld tor 30s a week as current maintenance and 10s a. week off the arrears, or in default six months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended on the payment of £2 per week. The notification of the order was not served on Bousefield until a month later, and on receiving it he rang up the station manager where he was working and told him to pay the money in accordance with the court’s order. Payment had since been regularly maintained, and Bousefield was right up to date, having paid £lO off to February 17. In spite of this, apparently the wife had wanted a lump sum, and insisted on the warrant to imprison her husband being executed. When tlie warrant was received by the local police they advised that the payments had been made, and returned the warrant, but it was forwarded back later from Auckland, with instructions to arrest and imprison the man. Counsel further alleged that Bousfield’s relatives had received threatening notes to thez effect that unless a lump sum was paid “he would be fixed up.” It seemed that the woman was relying on the fact that Bousfield was a respectable man and could not afford to go to prison, and that his relatives would have come to his aid. In point of fact the relatives could not afford to do so. An attempt has also been made to mislead the court at Auckland by describing Bousfield as a cattle dealer instead of a drover. In addition to sentencing him to prison for six months the court had imposed a fine of £3 for contempt of court in not obeying the order. Bousfield’s earnings averaged £lB7 per year. Mr Nolan stated that he was at a die< advantage in not knowing what petitioned was bringing forward. The Magistrate pointed out that an ad« journment would mean keeping the man in prison for another week. Mr Nolan suggested that it would be inequitable to deal with the case without him (counsel) being heard. The Magistrate: It seems that the man will be in prison until next Monday. *lt looks to me as though somebody deserves a reproof over the case. Mr Nolan: But we do not know what his wife may have to bring up. The Magistrate: No matter what you can bring up, Bousfield has strictly and actually complied with the terms of the order. It would have to be something very subtle to counteract that.

Mr Nolap said it seemed to him that his client was under a misapprehension, but that might not be the case. The Magistrate: You may be entitled to an adjournment, but the man has got no remedy. If he is wrongfully detained, every day he is imprisoned is another day of degradation and punishment for nothing. I do not think I can delay the matter any further. I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not order hia release. I feel he has suffered punishment that was not intended by the law, and I will make an order for his immediate discharge.