FAILURE TO MAINTAIN.

Waipa Post, Volume VI, Issue 270, 5 December 1913, Page 3

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN.

TE AWAMUTU CASE. SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE ORDER GRANTED A case which lias been before v the courts for several months pas-t was finally heard on Tuesday last at the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, before, Mr E. Rawson, S.M. The case‘arose out of 3' charges made by Mrs Mary Alice Woollass, of Te Awamutu, against her husband William Woollass, formerly Presbyterian minister of Te Awamutu. The charges were : 1. That the said William Woollass had failed and intended to fail to provide his wife with proper maintenance, i 2. That he had been" guilty of 1 persistent cruelty to her. 3. That 'he was a habitual inebriate. Mrs Woollass therefore prayed that a separation order 'and a maintenance order be granted her against her husband. • The case was first before the Court in July, when an adjournment was given owing to a misunderstanding between the counsel engaged in the ( case. Defendant’s counsel was willing for his client to enter into a deed of separation and give the complainant maintenance, but her

counsel refused to entertain the

proposal, as he considered that \V case had been before the .—‘A public in many untruthful forms for a long while, and it was in the interests of justice that the case should proceed if defendant persisted in denying, the truth of

the charges laid against him. A few days before the case was to be heard the defendant was operated on in the Waikato hospital, and so further -adjournments had to be made until a complete recovery was effected. When the action was called on at the Plamilton Court on Tuesday, Mr J. H. Luxford, appearing for Mrs Woollass, the cmnplainant, stated that there 'was no appearance of the defendant. Counsel stated that he had given Mr Mac Diarmid (appearing for Mr Woollass) plenty of notice that the case would be heard that day, so he felt quite justified in proceeding to prove his case in absence. His Worship: It is a very serious charge, so I think if possible the defendant should be prese.pt. . V Mr Luxford : It would be very desirable for the defendant to be here, but it is nobody’s fault but his own that he is not here. He knows certain charges' are pending against him, and.through his illness had been adjourned many ‘ 'times; and then when the time comes for hearing he fails to ap-. pear. I submit that a notice given his solicitor is sufficient. '• All my notices previously have been’left with his solicitor, so if now he absent himself without informing anybody he ipust bear the consequences. Mr Mac Diarmid has informed me he cannot find defendant. His Worship thought Mr. MacDiarmid should be communicated with. Mr Mac Diarmid arrived a few minutes later, and informed His Worship that he 1 considered Mr Luxford had given him ample notice tha* the case would be ■ heard that clay, and he (Mr Mac'Diarmid) had done his best to - communicate the fact to his. client. He had written and wired the defendant at the address given to him. Under the circumstances he would not apply for an adjournment, but would withdraw from the case. He would, however, watch the proceedings on behalf of Mr Woollass. His Worship regretted exceedingly that defendant had failed to appear, as he had hoped that he would have had an opportunity of seeing both parties together and attempting to bring them to a mutual understanding. “ In cases of this kind,” said His Worship, “it is always better to prevent the evidence if it is possible, for, although the wife may prove her charges, it must always . be remembered that the charges are proven against her husband, and what affects the husband must also affect the wife. - However, in face of what Mr MacDiarmid has said, I have no option but to let the case proceed. Mr Luxford : I am quite willing your Worship, in the event of t the defendant turning up at any time subsequently to waive any objection to an application for a rehearing. Mr Mac Diarmid: Must thank my friend for his offer. Mr Luxford then said it was really a most unfortunate case, and it was also most unfortunate that the separation order could not be made • without going

through the evidence. But the Act was quite clear that His • Worship had no power to make an order until he h«.d*satisfk#l himsdf of the truth of the charges. A separation order would‘be useless from his clients’ Hr point of view. It was essential Jor her personal safety that she be separated from her husband by an order of the Court. If only a deed of separation were entered •K into there was nothing to protect her from molestation by her husband, so an order of the Court must be insisted upon. t His Worship suggested, that if the least objectionable of the charges was admitted he could make the necessary order of separation and maintenance. —He asked Mr Mac Diarmid if it were possible for the charge of failing to maintain to be admitted. Mr McDiarmid replied that his in-

structions would allow him to admit that charge. ‘ His Worship : Well Mr Luxford an order can be made on the one charge. Mr Luxford: My instructions were to lead evidence to prove the three charges.

His Worship: That would be pure vindictiveness. Mr Luxford : I must confer with my client before I can depart from my instructions, and I am sure the course you suggest will be adopted. After an interval of half an hour Mr Luxford returned into court with his client. His Worship: Have you arrived at a means of settlement?

Mr Luxford’: Yes, your Wor-

ship. lam pleased to say I am in a position to finally end the matter. I would like at this stage, with your Worship’s permission, to make several remarks on the case before it is finally closed. My client has instructed me to consent to the order being made on the one charge only, and that the other charges be withdrawn. Nothing further can be gained bv going on with the other charges, and my client will be saved the ordeal of publicly disclosing her 15 years of married life with the defendant. I would like this to be clearly understood that the action was only brought to vindicate her good name and not out of vindictiveness. For years she had been willing to agree to a separa-

tion order but defendant would never agree.' Then came the resolution of the Waikato Presbytery, which was published throughout the press of New Zea •

land, practically sympathising with Mr Woollass to the detriment of his wife — His Worship: I don’t think you had better go into that, Mr Luxford, it may cause recriminations and prevent a settlement. Mr Luxtord : Very well, your Worship, I was only pointing out my client’s bona fides in this case.

His Worship then made an order of separation on the ground that the defendant had failed to maintain his wife, and a maintenance order for defendant to

pay £l per week for the suppert of his wife. Mr Luxford mentioned that his client had received nothing from defendant since February last, and submitted that the order should run from Ist March. His Worship said that he would order the defendant to pay also the sum of £39 for past maintenance in instalments of 5s per week.

Mr Mac Diarmid intimated that Mr Woollass was earning nothing at present, but hoped to be shortly. Mr Luxford asked that the costs of a recent operation on his client, rendered necessary through an act of violence by the defendant, be added to the order, but His Worship said he had no power to do this. Mr Woollass was ordered to pay the costs of the action amounting to nearly £lO. Counsel thanked His Worship for his efforts to bring about a settlement./’