THE MAINTENANCE OF A CHILD.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3989, 23 July 1915, Page 7

THE MAINTENANCE OF A CHILD.

AN UNSATISFACTORY CASE

PI. AIN TI FF N ONSUITED

The attention of Mr. AY. A. Barton. S.M., was taken up for some time at tlie Magistrate’s Court yesterday hearing a claim for maintenance.

Alice Mary Foote (Mr. Barnard) proceeded against August Zenker (Air. T. Alston Coleman) to recover £37, maintenance from December 21, 1913, to May 21, 1915, of a child, alleged to bo an illegitimate child, of the defendant, at the rate of 10s per week. Mr. Coleman said they denied any arrangement, and said if any relief were sought it- should be through the Destitute Persons Act.

Annie Love, daughter of the plaintiff, said! she was 23 years of -age. She was housekeeping for defendant off and on for about six years. She commenced: housekeeping for defendant When she was 17. A child was born in August, 1911. Defendant paid tlie expenses incidental to the birth, andl the child lived! with defendant until December, 1913. Defendant told witness in tho presence of her mother that he would pay 10s a week if she would look after the child. Defendant never denied being, the father of. the child until witness took these proceedings against- him. By; Mr. Coleman: Witness threatened! proceedings in March, 1913, _ but did not go on with the proceedings. The £6 defendant paid was not accrued wages, but for the birth of the child. When the child was sent to Napier for six months it was not supported by witness’ husband. Her Husband, had! not supported, her since lie had married her. ' Witness did not go back to her husband because the latter had no home for her. Another child had been born, to witness, and this was also defendant’s child. It was not a colored: child; it was a white child. It had .been adopted by the Natives. Alice Mary Foote, the plaintiff, also gave evidence. The defendant asked witness if she would take the child, a.s he did not think that- the mother cared very much, lor it. He promised- to pay witness 10s a week. William Joseph Bishop said he knew the defendant-, who saw' him about four years ago, and gave him an. envelope containing money t-o deliver to Mrs. Love at the nursing home. Witness was driving a butcher’s oart at the time. For the defence, Mr. Coleman said the claim was founded on sui alleged agreement between tlie plaintiff and' defendant, and he submitted, the only question for the Court to decide was whether that agreement had actually been entered! into or not. Defendant denied that he was the lather of th-o Child in question, or of the one- born subsequently. His Worship said- that the question as to whether defendant- was or was not the father of the child did not enter into the case 1 . Mr. Coleman said the defendant would! deny that he 'had entered into any arrangement- to pay 10s a week towards the maintenance of the child. Had the alleged 1 agreement been in existence it did sG’Ciri t roTiuirkiiblo that Mrs. Love, with the consent of her mother, should have threatened to take proceedings against defendant. Assuming that Jus Worship gave judgment for plaintiff, counsel ooutcndled! that tliis would not under section 13 of the Destitute 1 oisons Act prevent plaintiff from at once taking proceedings against defendant for the maintenance of the child His Worship said that counsel was only assuming difficulties. . August Zenker, the defendant, denied that ho had ever entered! into an agreement of any kind! to pay any-t-ivinw towards the upkeep of the child. His Worship said he was not satisfied, after hearing the evidence, that the defendant had entered into the agreement t-o pay 10s a week towards tho maintenance of the child. Ho had paid! nothing since the- alleged agreement, nor had any demand been made for payment. It was still open for the mother to take proceedings to recover maintenance. The case was a most unsatisfactory one. Plaintiff would he nonsuited, with, costs £2 4s.