HOSPITAL FEES.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18256, 18 February 1931, Page 5

HOSPITAL FEES.

TREATMENT OF CHILDREN. CLAIM AGAINST PARENTS. A claim for £4G 16s was brought in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court, today, by the Waikato Hospital Board, against lluntly W. Howden, and his wife Ada Howden, both of Rotorua, for maintenance of and medical attendance to their daughter Norma Howden, at the Waipukurau Sanatorium. There was also a claim against both defendants for £3l 10s on similar grounds in respect to their daughter Olive. , Mr F. Swarbrick appeared for the Hospital Board and Mr H. J. McMullin for Mr Howden. Mr Swarbrick explained that the defendants had formerly been separated and were, subsequently divorced, the wife being given custody of the two i children, who were then minors. . In the separation agreement the wife undertook, in consideration of her husband paying her maintenance, to keep away from Rotorua. This part of the agreement she did not fulfill. While the wife was still drawing maintenance, the daughters were sent to Waipukurau, the charge for their keep and trealrnent while there being upon the Waikato Hospital Board. The husband repudiated liability for their treatment, which he held was a charge on his wife, who had custody ol the children, and who had violated the agreement under which she was to draw maintenance. Mrs Howden ran a drapery establishment in Rotorua. The Hospital Board therefore had brought action against both parents. It was explained by Mr McMullin that one of the daughters, Norma, was over the age of 21. On' this claim therefore, Mr Swarbrick accepted a non-suit as against the male defendant. Judgment was given against the female defendant for £46 16s. I Giving judgment on the other claim ! His Worship said the circumstances were a little unusual because the parties were divorced and prior to their divorce there was a separation agreement the wife having custody of the then infant children. The husband had agreed to pay her certain maintrrranco monies ■ subject to her faithful performance of the obligations imposed on her under that agreement. She broke the. terms and he refused to pay her further moneys. While the payment of the moneys still continued, the wife placed the children, with her husband’s knowledge, in hospital, where they were maintained and given medical treatment. There was, said His Worship, no evidence of any special contract made at the time of the admission of the children to the hosiptal, imposing liability on any particular person. Under section 51 of the Destitute Persons Act, liability was imposed on the parents of anv minor in respect of maintenance in a public or charitable institution. His Worship held that the Waikato Hospital came within the scope of this section and said the court had discretion to apportion the contributions. He gave judgment against both defendants for £3l 10s in respect of Olive Howden.