MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Colonist, Volume LXI, Issue 15175, 13 September 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

NELSON.-^EPTEMBER 12, 191».

Before Mr. J. S. Evans, S.M,

CLAIM FOB MAINTENANCE.

John Walter Richards, of Wellington, was charged with having failed to provide adequate maintenance for his illegitimate child.. Mr. C. J. Harley appeared for the complainant, and Mr f, B- Moore (instructed by Messrs. Luke and Kennedy) for the defendant. Complainant, in evidence, stated the claim was made in respect of her doceased sister's child, which is- at present in a registered home in Auckland, knew nothing about any payments beyond those shown in the book (produced) and £3 forwarded after her sister's'death.

. l}f fendant> in evidence taken at Wellington, stated that he was formerly foreman printer on a newspaper in Kelson at a salary of £4 5s per week. In addition he earned from £3 to £3 10s per week from a picture programme until the latter period, when i& was reduced to £2 per week. He agreed to pay 12s per week in advance towards the maintenance of the child r™m its birth in 1916. He had four children when the agreement was made, and.now had live. He estimated his medical expenses in connection with nis wife's ill-health at £130 to £150. He was at present earning £4 10s per week. The payment for the child he maintained until 31st March, 1919, and ne believed it was sent on to the woman who was looking after the child. He denied that he was ever m arrears with the payments. After the death of the child's mother arrangements were made for carrying on the payments. The first he knew about arrears was a letter from complainant's solicitors, and he wrote asking for the amount. In a letter cßited 4th July the solicitors stated chat the amount due to 20th January was £14 Bs.

in cross-examination defendant admitted the agreement, which contained a.n admission that he • was the father of the child. He had no property of his own. His wife had an interest in the house in which they lived. He was earning £4 10s a week. He admitted being m arrears from 30th March last. His eldest child was earning 12s per week.

Mr. Harley applied for an order as from 31st March.

Mr. Moore asked that an order be made for not more than 7s 6d per week. He pointed out that when ■'defendant agreed to pay 12s per week he was earning upwards of £2 per week in addition to his wages of £4 5s per week and had four children, while at the present time he was earning £4 IDs per week, and had five children. Mr. Harley pointed out that one of the children was earning 12s per week. The Magistrate said that the child's mother being dead, the whole burden for. its support fell upon the father. He suggested that rather than the child should be brought up in a home, some arrangement should be made to have it kept wrEh its relatives. He thought the case should be adjourned for a week to see if some such arrangement could not be come to. The cost of living had increased since the agreement was entered into, and defendant's earnings were less now than they were then. He intimated his intention of making an order for 10s per week, and payment of arrears from 30th March by instalments.