UNUSUAL CASE

Southland Times, Issue 20200, 10 June 1927, Page 7

UNUSUAL CASE

MAINTENANCE ORDER APPLICATION FOR RELEASE FROM PRISON INFORMATION DISMISSED (Per United Press Association.) Gisborne, June 9. One of the most unusual prosecutions for arrest due under a maintenance order heard for many years mentioned to Mr E. C. Cleverly, S.M., in the Gisborne Police Court, was one in which Frederick Brougham Whjtmore Bousfield proceeded against his wife on an application for his release from prison. In March, Bousfield took similar proceedings here and was released by the Magistrate’s order after having served two weeks of the six months’ hard labour imposed, although up to the time of incarceration, he had complied with the terms of the maintenance order. Set at liberty on March 14, Bousfield secured a job and a week or so later paid the current maintenance and paid arrears at the rate of three times the amount ordered by the court to pay per week. His wife almost immediately summonsed him again, the case to be heard at Rawene where she was living. Financially unable to make the trip and unable to have his evidence heard here, there being no provision for taking evidence on commission in the Destitute Prisons Act, Bousfield applied for variations of the order but meantime his wife secured another order from the Magistrate sitting at Rawene for his imprisonment for arrears of the order, Bousfield being arrested again in Gisborne yesterday morning. Proceedings for release were later heard by Mr. E. C. Levvy, S.M. Counsel for defendant, Mr E. Brosnahan, outlined the facte on the lines stated above and submitted the Magistrate was entitled to review the case and decide whether Bousfield was to be imprisoned. Bousfield in evidence said he was imprisoned in February, despite the fact that he had complied with the order but was released here on March 14. On April 3he obtained employment at 12/- per day and had to provide horses and food for himself. The job was only temporary but he was compelled to take this as no other was offering. Since then he had paid £23 into the court in maintenance and arrears. He was on May 27 summoned to appear at Rawene for alleged failure to comply to the order but having no money, it was impossible for him to attend and apart from that, he would have lost his job and his wife would have had to go without her money. He then lodged an application for a variation of the order anti applied for an adjournment of the hearing of the summons against him to Rawene but this latter request was refused. He was sentenced to a month’s gaol and was arrested that morning. The summons was issued against him in Rawene by his wife, almost immediately after he was released from gaol here in March and in spite of the fact that he had kept up more than the ordered payments. The Magistrate in reviewing the case, said the information was laid by defendant seeking release from a conviction by the Magistrate at Rawene for failure to comply with the terms of a maintenance order. The order was apparently correct and a warrant was issued and Bousfield arrested. Counsel for defence had urged section 63 gave the court authority to decide practically that the original order should not be made. He did not take that view as he heard that the section merely authorised the Magistrate making an order or any other Magistrate to release defendant if he saw fit but the crux of the question was a provision in a clause of the Act, providing for the payment of a fine or any Sum which the court might see fit to order to be paid by defendant. It seemed to him that the object and intention of the clause was not that a Magistrate should review the facts only. There must be extreme feeling between the parties which was deplorable but he had no authority to interfere and unfortunately the order must stand. The information would be dismissed.