SEPARATED PARTIES.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17447, 6 July 1928, Page 10

SEPARATED PARTIES.

QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE. WESTLAKE v. WESTLAKE. Adjourned from Hamilton, the case of Catherine Louisa Westlake v. John Brown Westlake was heard in the Pahiatua Magistrate’s Court before Mr S L. P. Free, S.M. The complaint was that defendant intended to leave complainant without adequate maintenance by selling his assets and departing from New Zealand. Mr G. If. Smith appeared for complainant and Mr 11. It. Cooper (Palmerston North) for defendant. Application for an Order. Mr Smith said that the wife had taken proceedings on information sent her from Hamilton. Defendant and informant had been living apart for some time under a separation agreement whereby the husband was paying maintenance. Informant's brother had written from Hamilton to say that defendant was selling his farm and intended to leave New' Zealand. The brother arranged with the purchaser of the farm to hold up settlement of the sale to allow the wife to take pro-, ceedings. Defendant was understood to have told Donald McDonald, the purchaser of the farm, that he was leaving New Zealand, and Mr Smith asked the magistrate to make an order that McDonald’s evidence be taken at this point. If Westlake had no intention of leaving New Zealand and instead of the agreement, an order was made for the maintenance Lhen that wmuld be quite satisfactory. The informant in this case felt that it might at any time happen that he would leave the country as he had separated himself completely socially from his family. Defendant had not even communicated with his wife since the charge was preferred to say that he was not going to leave the country. Defendant was a particularly wealthy man, and the assistance he gave his family was not the slightest inconvenience to him financially.

Order. Opposed. Mr Cooper said he strongly opposed the making of an order. The defendant had assets, in round figures, at something like £30,000 in mortgages and freehold leases which he could not take away with him. Husband and wife had been separated since March 30, 1927, defendant paying his wife £4 10s per week and a daughter, considerably over the age of 10, £2 per week. His payments had ( .been regular, never one day late. Tile reason the couple parted was that Westlake had bought a farm in the Waikato and Mrs Westlake refused to go there with him. He found the farm a losing proposition and exchanged it for a town property at Matamata. The first that was heard of any intention io leave the country was from complainant’s brother “of certain character; but we won’t go into that,” added counsel. Westlake was living in Hamilton and about a month ago had been arrested without warning and put in gaol. The magistrate there had thought so little of the story, however, that lie had let him out on bail in his recognisance of £3O. If he had wished Westlake could easily have left the country since. Counsel contended strongly that no order should be made as there was no suggestion or reason to believe that defendant intended to leave New Zealand or that he would not keep up his payments, lie submitted also that some notice should have been given at least of this application for ail order which had just been mooted to the defence before the case came on. The treatment of defendant throughout had been disgracefully unreasonable. Surely, he said, further inquiries could have been made at Hamilton before this action was taken in order that some satisfactory evidence could first be given that defendant did intend to leave the country. Only Himself to Blame. Mr Smith: “If defendant is in any trouble he has no one but himself to blame”. Mr Cooper: “Why?” Mr Smith: “Because of his treatment of his family. It would have been no good taking action after he left New Zealand. The time to do it is before.” He added that if the wife had reason to suspect that her husband intended leaving her vyithout maintenance she could take action. If Westlake had no intention of leaving all lie had to do was write to his wife and say so, and allow the order to be made. Mrs Westlake had been informed that defendant had made a statement to a reputable person, McDonald, whom lie was selling his farm to, that he was going to leave New Zealand and it was no good waiting till the bird had flown before taking action. Defendant should be prepared to have an order made against him. Mr Cooper: “Ridiculous!”

Mr Smith said that it was quite possible that Westlake had realised his assets. It was quite possible also that lie had no intention of going away, but complainant could only act on the information given her. “If Westlake is quite genuine,” he concluded, “and has no desire to leave New Zealand he should be prepared to have an order made on the terms of his separation agreement, but unless he will do that we can’t say that we are at all satisfied.

Mr Cooper said it was a . dreadful thing if every person separated from his wife could be arrested on the statement in a letter of a person who might be responsible or irresponsible. "We arc not going- to consent to an-order,” he said, “because the maintenance is

paid regularly. The only property he has disposed of is a losing one at Waikato, which he exchanged. The proceedings of complainant have been high-handed to a degree.” ■ An Unfortunate Position. ‘‘This is an unfortunate position for all parties concerned,” said the magistrate. “The allegation is. that defendant/is not going to maintain his wife. Whether this is correct, I have no means of knowing and the only way is by taking the evidence of the witness on whose statements the action was made. I propose to adopt that course. It is a trying experience for the parties and a difficult matter for any court to deal with but it is the only w ; ay to get the truth of the allegations. He ordered that the evidence of Donald McDonald, of 55 Victoria Avenue, Remuera, Auckland, be taken in Auckland, and adjourned the case till August 9. Defendant w’as released again on bail in his owm cognisance of £SO.