UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18254, 24 November 1933, Page 6

UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES

D.P. ACT APPLICATIONS EX PARTE ORDERS SOUGHT DEFENDANTS IN OTHERCOUNTRIES Unusual circumstances were disclosed in two maintenance Older applications under the Destitute Persons Act part hoard by Mr. E. E. Walton, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court tins nwn.inig. In Lin cases it was stated that tW respondents were resident in other countries, one m Australia and the other in Northern Ireland, and ex parte orders ware sought by the applicants. Jn the first case Edward Artuur Stratton was proceeded against by liis wife on an application for guardianship and maintenance orders, and it was announced by the clerk of the court that the defendant, being out of New Zealand. had not been served with the summons. . , Mr. S. V. Beaufoy, counsel for -Mrs. Stratton, remarked that the magistrate would recall that an application by his client for a separation order had been granted some months ago. A child had since been born, and what the applicant desired most was a guardianship order in respect of the child. The police records showed that the defendant had left his mother's residence in Palmerston North, Hid had slipped off to Australia. Mrs. Stratton had been led to believe thaj: lie was still in New Zealand, letters written in bis name having] been received with the weekly payments of 5s maintenance. The parents stated that they did not know the defendant’s address, but counsel alleged that they had assisted him to leave New Zealand, and asked ioi»an ex parte order for the guardianship of the vhild. and an order for a reasonable amount of maintenance.

Mr. Beaufoy went on to state that the defendant had been paying only 6s a week for the maintenance of his wife, and lie proposed to lay a complaint against the defendant’s father and mother, who undoubtedly had assisted him to leave the country. “It seems a strange thing,” said counsel, “that his mother should write to me •and to the clerk of the court under his name without saying that he had left New Zealand.” The magistrate remarked that ac-i-ording to what counsel had said the defendant, under section 54 of the Act, had committed an indictable offence which rendered him liable to two years’ imprisonment. Mr. Beaufoy replied that his client was not in a position to lay such an information and lodge the sum of money required before he could bo brought back to New Zealand. The magistrate said that before an order were made there should be',some prior step; some notice should be served on the defendant’s parents, who apparently were the ones who last heard of him. While he had tne power to make an order in the defendant ’s absence, such an order was one that should bo made with every caution.

Counsel called Constable Murray, watch-house keeper at the Gisborne Police Station, who stated that a summons had been sent to Palmerston North for service on Stratton. Jt could not he served, and a report was received from the Palmerston _ North. , police stating that the address givetf*J had been visited, and the defendant ’s mother had informed the police that he had left for Australia. She refused to give his* address. The magistrate ordered that a summons should be served on the defendant’s parents, together with a notice that the complaint would bo proceeded with on December 18 in the absence of the defendant if he did not appear or was not represented.

SON VERSUS FATHER In the second case Hugh McCulloch Scott applied for an order for maintenance against bis father, Charles Scott, now resident in Port Stewart, Ireland. Air. Bcaufoy, who appeared for the applicant in this case also, reminded the court of a tenancy case part heard and adjourned recently in which the present defendant sought the eviction of his son from a house which he occupied in Gisborne. A few years back, continued counsel, the complainant and his father had been very friendly, and the son, acting for bis father, had sent considerable sums of money to Ireland, amounting to about £4OOO. The house in which the complainant was living belonged to his father, and was free of all incumbrances.

The complainant had been seriously ill in the Pukeora Sanitorium for a considerable time, went on Mr. Bcaufoy, and had been discharged about two years ago. Since then he had been maintained by the Charitable Aid Board, which allowed him 10s a week, and by a lodge, which made him an allowance of an equal amount, besides which he received milk and other small things from the board free of charge. It was absolutely impossible for him to work, and he was a destitute person; his son also was ill.

“I fail to see,” said counsel, “why, when a man shifts money from Now Zealand, the ratepayers of this district should be called upon to give his son charitable aid, when his father could easily keep him.” Air. Bcaufoy asked for an ex parte order, and an order for past maintenance, so that a charge could be placed upon the house.

The magistrate drew Air. Bcaufoy’s attention to section 4 of the Alaintenance Order (Facilities for Enforcement.) Act, and counsel admitted that it was doubtful whether the order could be enforced in Ireland, in view of the status Ireland had obtained. His simplest plan would be to apply for an ex parte order against a near relative. The magistrate pointed out that the Act required that there should be proof that the defendant resided in the United "Kingdom or elsewhere in His Alajesty’s Dominions, and remarked that he believed that both Northern and Southern Ireland still had the status of a Dominion. The clerk ol: the court had drawn his attention to a note received from the Justice Department in 1923 stating that a provisional order .made in New Zealand could be enforced in Eng land or Ireland, and no contrary instructions had since been received. Air. Walton said that he would not make an ex parte order, but advised that wlie:e the residence of the defendant was known he should be sent notice by registered letter. .Mr. Bcaufoy stated that lie had taken that course, and added that he would prefer to proceed with a provisional order: the defendant would then know what was going on hero. The magistrate pointed out that counsel should produce all the evidence available as the order would be of no avail until it was confirmed. Counsel intimated that ho would bring the case on later, when lie would call the necessary evidence.