A MAINTENANCE CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 929, 30 June 1903, Page 1

A MAINTENANCE CASE.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday an unusually interesting mainte-

nance ease was heard. Elizabeth A. Hicks applied for an order requiring

her husband Francis Hicks to support her live children under Hie age of fourteen years. Mr L. Rees appeared for plaint ill', and Mr Lysnar for defendant. In her evidence Mrs I licks .stated that her litis band was ■in flawera, and for twelve months had not, supplied maintenance for her

or her five children. In cross-exa-mination by Mr Lysnar she said her 'husband had over twelve months ago assigned her twenty acres of land at Mont rose, Kaili. The house and eight acres had been bought in her

name liftecn years ago, wit ness paying £2Oll and her husband the balance. In April she sold all the ■property, obtaining £!)00 for the house and eight acres : of this she paid Geo. Williams LOO odd. for a mortgage, etc. The. twenty acres she sold for .-£-140, paying off it a mortgage of £21)0. She had sold nine head of cattle and a trap 'and harness for Lilt, all being her property, bought with her own money. Her husband had not done anything towards paying for the stock. When he sold his teams he did not pay all his debts, and in September last she borrowed £IOO, and gave il to him to pay his debts. She had on several eases ordered him away, 'but he always came hack. She did not, when she ordered him away in April, say that she would not trouble him for herself or children. She, was troubling him because lie would not. pay the rates or interest or for groceries. The twenty acres which he had transferred to her was, she

knew, the last her husband had in Gisborne, hut it had only shifted the responsibility from iiis shoulders on to hers. For a trap and horse

which her husband had sold lie had

got, .She denied having thrown iier husband's filings on the verandah. His portmanteau had been lying on the verandah for sometime 'hut it was empty—one of the girls had put the tilings out. She had not pelted her husband with stones. Mr Lysnar contended that maintenance could not he claimed, as the 'defendant had not unlawfully deserted Ills family.

Mr Rees said il, did not matter if a man gave his wife a million of money on leaving, lie was still liable for maintenance; it was an obligation lie had to the children.

Jlis Worship said that they could not be considered to have been left 'destitute if the wife had been left with plenty of money. Plaintiff said that she had had to 'borrow £IOO for her husband. f reckon what’s mine is mine,” she added.

In reply to Mr Rees, plaintiff' said her husband hart informed her lie would not provide anything for the children. She had reasons for telling him that lie could go if he did not behave himself.

In reply tn i\lr Lysnar His Worship said that the fact of defendant being ordered away would not get rid of liis liability to the children. Mr Lysnar said that in this case the provision made had not been exhausted. Within the last; i'ew weeks plaintiff had obtained £7iM- in hard cash.

“ But; I had to buy a home out; of that.” interjected ,Ihe plaintiff. Continuing, Air Lysnar said that four of the family were hoys earning money. Defendant had practically left destitute, having to borrow sufticicnt to carry him away. 1

His Worship said that on plaintiff’s own showing her husband had left adequate maintenance for the children at present. It would he time enough to seek an order when the money was exhadsted. Mr Rees was asking how ii would he if Mrs Hicks went out and spent die £7(10, when His Worship said he hoped she would not be so extravagant. Mr Rees said the £7OO would only provide £.15 a year for the live children.

“ When they become destitute an order will he made,” 11 is Worship replied, and the application was refused.