MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1993, 26 February 1914, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TRIP TO EELAN&

.PECULIAR RECOURSE TO LAW. A somoiviiat extraordinary proceeding was taken tii.tltc Magistrate's.'Com't yesterday by Richard 'Wcdriersiifloii, who invoked the law in an unusual -manner to facilitate Ms departure Irein New Zealand [or' England. Tlip npplieiml' ivas divorced from liis" first- wiio -sonw little timo ago, and after ili-c '■ dissolution of marriage lie■ was ordetod t-a contribute los.' per wcolt , 'towards tha strpjjort of the children. He is now mnrnocl nfpiin,, and has lately heen desifosi-s of visiting England. With the order to support his children still operative, a tmltawlt.r arose, inasmuch as his first wife's si>!!S-. tor might take steps to prevent him from leaving the country. Jsis trwKly, then, apparently lay in nirlncihg his first wife's solicitor to siimnioii him to find security for amounts which might, in the course of time, lipcnmf stae ttmlpr tlii! order. This, however, (he solieitor did not do, and, in his pri-piesity an to how to-surmount the oliguric, Wedilerspoon (through his coiiitsel> tooK:' a rmii'3l , which ainountod tii institliling n proceeding against himself- 1 -hi" apt'Sifd to the Court for a variation of the or'lt-r. Mr. W. 0. lMddoll, S.M.. whs nn the Bijucli when the caw was tfalW. Uirlifird Wedderspoon was rcprescnt.nl By MrT. -M. Will'onl, and "itargarwi Wnf-ier-spooii (tbe mother of the cliildteii

named Its tl'Ks (jra-ar) ivas represented hy Mr, A. Dunn, • '• ■ £100 to bo Lodged in Court. In opening ih e case, .Mr. Wilfonl stated that tiio comhitt of Mr. Diiim-in the lriaitw liotl beun so extraordinary that, it would ho unjust, not to give liiiiian opportunitv to explain it. Mr. Dunn had refused io take but proecedisigs against Weddorspoqn, but had said thnt, as Kion as ho attcinpt«d to leave tho ■country. }h> would have him arrested. The applicant, Itioliard Wctidcrsp'oon t-lwn .gave evidence. He Stated that ho had repeatedly informed 3.1 r. Dann that ho intended going to England, and that Mr. Dwm hud always threateircd to stoji hi™. Mr. TJuiift; Is it not a fact that the difference Isetwciin you iilid { has been i about iho nature of"'else security? Witness: You always , put obstacles in my way. " . . Mi'. Buun remarked i-liat what 3fi-. Wilfdrtl had said ahrmf) him was quite uncalled for. He had told Weddorsiwoti that lie was not prepared to accept the ■surety, because the" sitrety was bis second wife, who. was going with lijm. The Magistrate: Is she ■ goiflg with him? Mr. Witfenlr Yes. The, Magistrate: Well, that is no security. Mr. Wilford:' She is prepared to deposit security lor a year. Tlte Magrstrat*: "Thftt willnot 'cl-o. Sw-'l-i security is not sufficient. Mr. WHford-The moiioy could bo paid ttito Court. The Magistrate: Ho« ; long do they propose to be away? Mi'. - Wilford:" Two years. Tho Magistrate: That- scetTrity cainiot be accepted.., The surety woidd be going out', of the country, and there is vo recourse, agaiiist a person outside tlw IJotiimion; &t security Biiglit be vakteless. ■ " Subsequently his-Worship ■ said that tho security which lio>o«ki aefcept was a deposit in Ootirt. of .£IOO, ov « bondot £100 with sureties to the same amount, that WetMcrspaoß would , comply with Wib order. Mr: Wilfcirdsiiict that fhe £100 would be deposited iu tho t'«(irt during the day. • ... '.'.•.• ■the. First-Mrs. .Wcdder?paarj, Mr. Dunu' theu isfcect the Ceurt to deal with Woddw-spooii's application 'for varratwn of tite order. He Mi'ged that ttiß variation should , be in Hits' niiUire of ail increase in the anwiiiit, % the reason that the mother of the children wiEs now ''in-'worse': financial cirolmstaiiccjs lih«.n eho'-wafi'at the time that 15s, ])w week was allotted. Sir's. Weddcfspoon (first ' wife) went into, the- witness bo.\- and described hw 1 tinaiicmi position. Whwi cress-csaiiiitied sjjedtnicd that she tarried oil with ii man wiio forwerly. managed a private I hntel in Wellington for her. Mr. Wiii'ord ttandetl up a letter. "Js that your, eldest s-om's writing i , " he i uekeiL -■'•■ ■-.''.'.'■'•■' Witness: Yes. Mr. Wilfe.rd: And he sa.ys -that- the ; way you are carrying on 1 witlvtliis man , —drinking and gaHHiliiig ivitii him —is disgraerfiil, . . j Witness: Tliat is Met true. . . . He fs a tlwrijHgli -geiitteroan. Mr. Wilford: He has 'stvtck to you like a .brother ? Witness; Yes;. he has tloni? more for the cliildren than their father has. Mr. Wilford: Is not this'trouble abont! this order all tire result, of jealousy on .your part Mi. \V«kfcrsjiaou got.married again ? Witness: Certainly not. I never was happier limn when 1. cUvorcftd iita. ' ;Ur. Dui'.u; it Ws you ivlio took the .divorce tiroecetiings?—"Yes," 3Jr. Du(i!i: Ik nevnr came forward in

the'oUttT Court' rin-d chimed. tli« chilwlren oii the ground tif anything wrong in .your coiulact?—"Xn." Mr, Wilford: That is not the stop". Why has sho not gn-t J'L -— sppearhm fof'litf to-day? Mr, —— represented tier in. the.-ntftcr Court,.' •Witaess..: Sir. •■ : tire Magistrate;' Tlmt will do. 1 don't, want- to' hear anythjßg about that. jEfeirtaalty his Worsiii:* deckfcd'iwt to vaVy tho order..' . . ■ . OTHER BUSINESS. CIVIL CASE FOR REHEAWXC. Mr. lliddell gfautwl an appii?ai|tin for tiio rplteirjiiK of. Hk cwc of and M-i'l'or v. Jfihit Lewnski, a civil chum for £'2 \-)%,.M,,.m whi;4t' jtidfcntMit was tt'wntly entered for ti'.e phiintilf by dtfaiik. ' Mr, J'. W. Jaeteoii, wiio snpuorte<l the application, trxplainri] Itow. Jjcpf-i'ski's lack of k'»;il pritcedui'e had roMilted in tlw dvx jsp\n% by default, aiiii stated that . dolcndant <4aktted that lw did not la-fow., awl prior to this claim had ltot evon hr-ftrsl of, the plaintiff firm. ' . ■ POLICE- MATTERS. Leonard James Parker Unston was eiKirjjfs] with Vaiiare to wlefluatcly provide "fot ;his wife and.child, who are in Dancdiii, 'and with tho theft of a «nn from thc.ket:;h l)cwran at v/.ns 'remanded to-, appear at Lyttclton ttj-l;io?.'rGvv. ' Artiiiir Ricixords w:i* roiHsmiod till j pest AV'wln'cStlav on a charge of tho Ihefl j of ;C1 75.. 3d. from tho Labour Department. ■ ' ■ . .lames Walker was fined 10s. for m--,Ee?sriety. " '• Joseph DonneHy and J«sejMi femith were each fifltfd £1 for' having cngsged i .in an affray in Frederick Street.