WRONG PROCEDURE

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 83, 19 November 1928, Page 4

WRONG PROCEDURE

MAINTENANCE APPLICATION. AN INTERESTING CASE. At- the. Stratford Court this morn- ' ing, before Mr li. W. Tate, S.M. Pearl Bound (Mr. Tyrer; applied for the variation of a maintenance order against George Bound (Mr. Kay). Mir. Tyrer said that after! the, birth of one child the parties'. agreed to separate. Bound failed to keep up the. payments agreed on,, and an order of the Court was secured, covering his wife and the one child. Since th(s separation Bound had maintained communication with his wife, and she had given birth to another child. The present proceedings were for the purpose of having) the Court's order varied to include the second child. Bound was not' earning very much at present, but it was desired to lijave the. second child included in tho order, so that if Bound's means increased he could be compelled to pay something, for it. The S.M". expressed the opinion that the Act did not contemplate the birth; of another child as a ground for variation of an order. The payments under the order were in arrears and it would probably be better for Bound to go to gaol for a period than for the. Court to spend, its time on an academical allocation of the amount ordered to be paid. Mr. Kay s-aid Bound denied paternity. Aj. present Bound earned only £\ per week. Th£ S.M, said the order covered the. wife and one child- If that, child were to die that woul.d he a ground for an application for a variation of the order because of altered circumstances. If another child was born he thought the correct procedure would be. to apply for maintenance for that child.

Mr. Tyrej said he would withdraw the proceedings. The S.M: Wiiat's tlys youth going to do about paying up? Mr. Kay: Ho has been paying something, but he is not in regular work. The S.M: He must get regular work. There must be plenty of regular work to be got. People can- ( not bring children into the world and expect the State to look after them.