PRISONER ASKS FOR HIS RELEASE; STRANGE CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18178, 10 June 1927, Page 14

PRISONER ASKS FOR HIS RELEASE; STRANGE CASE.

MAGISTRATE SAYS ORDER MUST STAND. Per Press Association. GISBORNE, June 9. One of the most unusual prosecutions I for arrears due under a maintenance j order heard for many years was mentioned to Mr E. C. Levvy, S.M., in the Gisborne Police Court. It was one in which Frederick Brougham Whitmore Bousfield proceeded against his wife on an application for his release from prison. In March Bousfield took similar pro- I ceedings here and was released by the Magistrate’s order after having served . two weeks of the six months’ hard I labour imposed, although up to the I time of incarceration he had complied ] with the terms of the maintenance order. Set at liberty on March 14, I Bousfield secured a job a week oi so later, paid, current maintenance and paid arrears at the rate of three times the amount he was ordered by the Court to pay per week. His wife a.- : most immediately summoned him again, the case to be heard at Rawene, where she is 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 Persons Act, Bousfield applied for variations of the order, but meantime his wife secured another order from the Magis- , trate sitting at Rawene for his im- j prisonment for arrears of the order, Bousfield being again arrested in Gisborne yesterday morning. Proceedings for release were later heard by Mr E. C. Levvy, S.M. Counsel for defendant, Mr E. Broshahan, outlined the facts on the lines stated above and submitted that the Magistrate was entitled to review the case and decide whether Bousfield was to i be imprisoned. j Bousfield, in evidence, said he was imprisoned in February despite the j fact that he had complied with the order, but was released here on March 14. On April 3 he obtained employ- ; ment at 12s per day and had to pro- j vide 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 Court in maintenance and arrears. He was, on May 27, summoned to appear at Rawene for alleged failure to comply with 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 woui>. have had to go without her money. He then lodged an application for variation of the order, and 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 goal, 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 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 BcHisfield was arrested. Council for the defence had urged that 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 held that the section merely authorised the Magistrate to release defendant if Jie saw fit, but the crux of the question was the provision in the clause of the Act providing for payment of a fine or any sum which the Court might se-» fit to order to be paid by defendant. It seemed to him that the object and intention of the clause was not that the 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.