NO ORDER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12067, 24 July 1917, Page 6

NO ORDER.

CURLETT MAINTENANCE CASE. DISCLOSURES AND ALLEGATIONS. Interesting allegations were made, in tho Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., in a case in which Elizabeth Ann Curlctt (Mr Twyneham) proceeded against Huston Curlett (Mr Rowo) for arrears of maintenance amounting to £6 4s. Mr Twyneham said that the order was nominal, amounting to Is a week, and was made on December 2. 1915. ''T understand the wife has all tho property," said the Magistrate. "Not nearly all," said Mr Twyneham.

" By far the larger proportion," said Mr llowp, who submitted that, the witnesses' expenses, £7 4s. at the first hearing, were excessive. The Magistrate said that they included doctors, but the amounts had been made.

After .some further consultation it appeared that owing to errors in the Court records a sum of .C2 L's. solicitor's fee. included in the arrears, had already been paid, thus reducing the arrears to £4 2s.

Mr Howe said that in the case of a nominal order, maintenance was certainly not required, and Mrs Curlett had very much more money and property than "her husband. The information for the original order was laid while Curlett was in a mental hospital. Tho complaint was addressed to him as a patient at Sunnyside. From 1910 till the end of 1014 he was a patient .in n mental hospital. At the end of IDIJ he _was discharged, but in October, inio. he was committed again for a month for observation. During that month the wife applied for maintenance and separation. On his return he was forbidden to go to his own house and had never been there since. The proceedings had been started and were waiting for him. He had no ■solicitor to advise him and no opportunity of getting evidence to defend the case.

" Ho was at large," said Mr Twynoham.

Mr Rowo said thai, an old broken down man was different f r „ ni ; , young man. fie, had since said that ho thought lie. consented to no more than a separation order. The shilling a week could not have Ik en intended to he enforced. Mrs Curlett brought an action last December lor the sum of .CD Os expenses and solicitor's fee, and it was phid, but nothing was said about the arrears of maintenance. Curlett was now "' bachintr." While in the mental hospital his wife, acting under receivers))ij> orders, took oyer a very considerable estate, from him, and handed over to him onlv a little over £2OOO. The house whore she lived war? in her name, but she enjoyed the use of his furniture. She had been a hie to lend £,"000 in one sum. The object of the action could be nothing but to annoy the husband, and Mrs Curlett brought an action if he annoyed her. In the way of pin-pricks, nothing could beat an action like t)ie present. The orders served no good purpose. "What are his means?" asked the Magistrate.

Mi- Howe said that out of the whole estate Mrs Curlett handed back .securities amounting to a little over £'2ooo, keeping all the rest. He had no means, and was fully overdrawn. His securities were bringing in no more than six per cent, equal to an income of a little over £IOO a year. The complainant had recently spent £'.121 for the marriage* of her daughter, and had written to her husband, who knew nothing about it, for .cm.

" I protest ajrainst this,'' said Mr Twvneham. "Mr I?owe is talking to the Press."

" f think he is talking a little more than is necessary." said the Magistrate. Mr Twyneham submitted that the points in dispute should be kept to strictly. He was instructed that the complainant had no income whatever at the present time. "Tf she has no income," said Mr Rowo, "why does she spend £'l2l on a single marriage. She gave a banquet at the Grand Hotel —." The last words were tittered under a storm of protest from Mr Twyneham, who again denied that his client had means.

" If you say that." said Mr Rowe, " I will show what she spends." The Magistrate said that he would not make an order. He remembered the original order, which had been merely nominal.