MISSING MAN FOUND.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2051, 10 September 1920, Page 7

MISSING MAN FOUND.

ARRESTED IN CHRISTCHURCH. Maintenance cases but seldom have features which should commend them to the interest of the public, but the statements made at tlio Wellington Magistrate's Court (says yesterday's "Evening Post") regarding applications made by Bertha Barclay for separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders against her husband, John William Barclay, cleared up the yearold mystery of the defendant's disappearance, over -which considerable interest was raised at the time.

Mr 0. C. Mazcngarb, in outlining the 'case for the complainant, said that the parties were married in 1915, and lived happily together till a year later, when he went to the War as a commissioned officer. He returned to New Zealand about a year later, and again lived with his wife and child. Apparently during this time he had made the acquaintance of another soldier '» wife. This woman was believed to be a neurotic, nervous person, and Mr and Mrs Barclay showed their kindness by taking her into their home. The woman apparently refused to obtain medical attention till the position became such that she had to go elsewhere. At that time Barclay obtained a position of architect at the Government Buildings, and was on friendly terms with his wife and child. A suggestion was made that, as the woman was causing some trouble at the house at which she was staying, she should be placed under some restraint, and Barclay and his wife went to the. Police Station to give certain particulars about the case. Mis Barclay returned to her home, but. from that afternoon, November 16, 1919, up till a few days ago, when Barclay was arretted in Christchurch, no more was seen of the man or of the mysterious woman. Tt was then ascertained that they had been living in Christchurch under an assumed name, Barclay having been engaged as a driver at a wage of £4 per week. Counsel held that the defendant should be able to contribute .£2 per week towards the support of his wife and child, as he should be able to secure employment more commensurate with his ability.

The complainant, in answer to questions put. by Mr ('. B. O'Donnel), for the defence* said that her husband had left some £2OO worth of furniture, and that she had also received a sum of £2O as back pay duo t,o her husband after he had disappeared.

Mr O'Donnell said that the defendant doubted whether he would now be able to obtain employment in his profession. The application for separation and guardianship orders were not opposed, but the defendant could not offer to pay more than 30/- per week to his wife.

Mr W. 0. Riddell, S.M.. graiited the orders applied for. and expressed the opinion that £2 per week should not be beyond the defendant's means. An order was made accordingly, and the provision was made that Barclay should find a surety of £.IOO for compliance with the order.