FAMILY DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20310, 21 May 1934, Page 7

FAMILY DISPUTE.

Action in Maintenance Court. FORTUNE LOST IN FARMS. The domestic affairs of Err*est Edward Edmonds and his wife, Ethel Maud Edmonds, occupied the attention of Mr H. P. Lawry, S M, in the Magistrate's Court to-day. Mrs Edmonds, who is living apart from her husband, applied for a variation of maintenance from £2 to £3 a week, and for a charging order over certain shares in Edmonds, Ltd., and other shares and debentures. She also asked that the order should include a charge over all her husband’s income. Mr Hunter appeared for the applicant and Mr Saunders for respondent. It was stated in evidence that Edmonds had at one time been a wealthy man. but had lost nearly everything through investments in farming property, and was reduced now to an income of £5 a week. He stated that he lost £3200 on a farm at Greenpark. £9OO on a farm at Springston, and £450 on a farm at Rolleston. Interest on £4OOO. Mrs Edmonds, giving evidence, aileged that her husband was now getting interest on £4OOO left him in his father’s will. He had, she contended, spent considerable sums at the race;, in gambling and on drink. He had been a taxi driver for a period before March, 1933, and was now retired, with the intention of keeping racing stables. Under examination witness admitted that she had received a legacy of £SOO under the Edmonds will, and that she had spent it. “ If you’ve spent £SOO over the last eighteen months you’ll have to give me some idea of how it has gone,” said the Magistrate. “On the face of it it looks extravagant.” Witness said that she had furnished her room and had gone for several holidays.

“ Frittered Away.** “You don’t get maintenance from the Court just to fritter it away,” said the Magistrate. “If you don’t explain where the £SOO has gone, you won't get maintenance to do the same thing again.” Witness said that she was not able to explain. She thought that she was entitled to the money. In the box, Edmonds gave an account of his earnings over a period of years, and of the farming ventures in which he had lost money. He admitted that his father had advanced him thousand? during his lifetime, and that in his will his father had specified that he was merely to draw interest on the money left to him because his father was not satisfied with “ his mode of living.” Under cross-examination he admitted that all members of the family connected with the firm had signed an agreement that they would not have anything to do with racing. He had trained horses, he said, with his father’s approval, but denied that he had ever bet anything more than a pound on a horre. Several times during the hearing. Mr Lawry stopped Mr Saunders for going into matters which he said were irrelevant to the case, and rebuked him for drawing what he stated were false inferences from evidence that had been given. “ I want you to know. Mr Saunders, that I take a lot of note of the way you ask questions,” he said on one occasion. “If you want to make statements that appear incorrect it is not proper. Unless it is not correct leave it alone.” (Proceeding.)