MAINTENANCE ORDER.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17966, 11 March 1930, Page 7

MAINTENANCE ORDER.

OBTAINED BY HUSBAND. OBJECTION BY WIFE. SUPREME COURT ACTION. AUCKLAND, Tuesday. In the Supreme Court Mrs. Gerald L. Stead objected to an order recently obtained by her husband under the Destitute Persons Act, and sought an intervention of the Supreme Court to cancel it. Counsel for (he wife said the case was an appeal from an order made by Mr. 10. C. Cullen, S.M., on February 19, when he dismissed an application for tlic variation or cancellation of an order previously made by him under the Destitute Persons Act. The facts were that the respondent Stead was married in 1909, and by a marriage settlement £IO,OOO was paid 'to trustees, who were lo pay from the income £OOO a year to Mrs. Stead, and the balance, approximately £2OO, to the husband. The parties separated, and in April, 1926, a deed of separation was entered into. Counsel said Stead, who lived at Takapuna, said lie was a destitute person, and on October 4 he went to the Magistrate’s Court asking for an order against his wife. I-lis wife knew nothing of the proceedings. Certain evidence was taken, and the magistrate found that Stead was destitute, and awarded him £5 a week against his wife. When she discovered this she decided to lest the validity of the order. There was a right to appeal, but the wife was too late. At the application for I lie variation or 'cancellation of the order heard here in February it was proved, said eouunsel, that Slead was living in Takapuna in adultery. The magistrate on a considered judgment refused to vary or cancel I lie order. Counsel was now asking His Honour to vary or cancel the order. His Honour adjourned the case for Hie hearing of argument this morning. TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. EVIDENCE BY STEAD. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST WIFE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Tuesday. The hearing of the Stead maintenance case was resumed in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr Mowbray, counsel for Stead, asked permission to further examine Ipis client, in consequence of the evidence given relative to Stead living with a woman at Takapuna. Asked what unhappy grievances lie had against his wife prior to the separation, witness said he had been away from home a great deal attending race meetings in connection with his livelihood. Frequently when he arrived home lie found his wife insehsibly drunk. The first occasion was in 1914. He had engaged the services of medical men to break her of the habit. Mr A. 11. Johnstone objected to this evidence, on the ground that the wife was absent, and it was impossible to challenge such statements. Stead could not put himself forward as a person without blame, and the circumstances of his life were such that his wife was excused from keeping him. ■His Honour: If she is the same class of a woman as she says he is of a man, is there any reason why she should refuse to maintain him because he is living with another woman? Mr Johnstone: That would make no difference. u\o wife should he forced to maintain .an ablebodied man carrying on business and keeping an establishment in which another woman, is involved. Had to Sell Cambridge Property. Witness, continuing his evidence, said drinking on ttie part of his wife continued - until the separation, although she had given frequent promises that it would never occur again. A difference also existed between them on financial grounds. At the time of the separation there were outstanding accounts, some of which were over £IOO, and witness had to sell his Cambridge property lo meet his liabilities. “1 was drowning my sorrows,” said Stead, when asked what stale he was in at the time of meeting the woman with whom fie was living at Takapuna. He confided ids sorrows to her, and her influence had led him to give up drink. He had asked her if he could stay at her furnished batch, and the owner of the property had given him permission to erect a tent lo sleep in. Ilis Honour asked why the Magistrate had made an order against the wife for £5 per week. Did it require £5 to support a destitute person. It appeared that the Magistrate had determined to do equitably, hut he should have considered only what amount was necessary to relieve Hie man’s wants. Why He Attended Race Meetings. The reasons why he had attended race meetings were given by Stead. He said the breeding and training of racehorses had been his livelihood. Mr Johnstone, to witness: You sleep in the same compartment with the lady whose name has been mentioned ? Witness; Yes, but in a separate bed. Do you undress there? —Yes. She undresses in the bathroom. Witness admitted that lie had been living with the woman for 2j years. Mr Johnstone; You had lived in a lavish style most of your married life? —No, 1 lived comfortably. Did you entertain lavishly in the Hotel Australia? —No, not lavishly. Mr Johnstone: As a sportsman would?—t have seen them 100 per cent, worse. Witness denied lliat during (he latter part of his life with his wife lie was almost, constantly drunk. He had to attend lo his business. Mr Johnstone: What was your business? —Witness: Farming and racehorses. You have won with racehorses in most of ilic big events in New Zea-land?—-Yes. ’ You won large sums?—Yes, £4:.!,000 in eight years. You have tried to get back money that you agreed should be used for the education of your children:— 1 think 1 am entitled to it. Tho Cause of Destitution. Replying to His Honour, witness said he had not introduced the woman as Mrs Stead to anyone at Takapuna. He admitted that drinking had been partly the cause of his destitution. •Mr Johnstone: You have always had three meals a day? —Always. (Continued in next column.)

How long is it since you had a party at the tea rooms? —A birthday partv on January 21. Your health was enthusiastically toasted?—YesYou were still in a state of destitution. You are quite well dressed? — Yes. And your motor car stands at the Court door? —Yes. Y’ou buy benzine for it? —\cry little. Witness said lie used the car in connection with his business. It had paid for ilself. Mr .Johnstone: What was your trade turnover? —£500 to the end of February. Y’ou commenced las October? Yes. Y'ou are now trying to sell?—Yes. You have cast vile aspersions on your wife. —You drove me to it. Judgment Reserved. Mr Johnstone said he had no opportunity of offering rebutting evidence lo Stead’s allegations against his wife, because she was absent. Witness made Ibc admission that he intends to bring proceedings for a divorce. Will you marry the girl? asked Mr Johnstone. Witness: I v.oubt no longer bo blackmailed. There had been a close approach lo blackmail in some slatemen Is that had been madeMr Johnstone informed His Honour that no payments had been made under the Magistrate's order. Judgment was reserved.