A MAINTENANCE CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 June 1925, Page 4

A MAINTENANCE CASE.

i hi i) tm i'i.K's aitm.icatki.v A I'CK i.AN I), Jum- .'i. A -liiuev hal remarkahle story, not ui: i l l i\■ 1 1 unit pallid-., v. as told in the Hamilton Mayis 1 rale'- L'ourt- to-day, v. leu .-id eldi-rU couple proceeded against their uealihy married daughter under the Destitute IVrsohs Ait for mainteuam (■ at the rate of Cl a week each. The complainants were Matthew William I.iilm- and Alite .Maud Hake. I!i 11. indent. who did not appear. was Alice .May Miles, a married worn,tu residing at I’aiiginra. She was 1 represented by her soli, ifor, Mr Adams. !l was shown that complainant's attld was Htu-y Jtlaek, who died .entile years ago in Kugland. leaving an estate ol L l lll.ftOO. Site liei| uca thed to her nephew, the male complainant, Coo!K) and one-ninth interest in the estate lor life, the money to go to his dattghl el's upon his death. A codicil was. however, issued revoking Hake’s share, lie was told that, lie could make application lor provision under the wiil, hut if he did his daughters would get nothing. Accordingly In- allowed hiir.seli to he legally dead, ami the money then went to his children. 11 is daughter Alice told him at one lime that he would never have to want for

anything. Outlinin'; th<-‘ case lor complainants Air Tompkins explained that shortly alter ilie cliildivn got the monev tie. old couple opened up an apartment house in Hastings. lining assisted liiianeiaily hy hot It daughters. The venture i was not a success, however. The moriI 4agee foreclosed, ami Mr and Mrs l.ake were left destitute. They appealed to their daughter Alice lor assistance. hut beyond sending them a lew pounds site turned a deal ear to their appeals. The other daughter, Kuhv. however, came to their assistance, and lor the last ten months had been providing tor her parents in her home at Tailwlntre. It was fe!i. however, that the other daughter should take her fair share of the luirJon, and at least pay hall o! the eost of iiiaintertaneo. 17espotiuent had ;i hig motor-car and a governess. Her husband earned about C'-’d :t week. The defence did not offer any evidence, hut expressed willingness to pay what th.e Court considered fit and proper. Titov were of opinion, however. that IT’ a week for the old couple was excessive for a half-share. Respondent was ordered to pay the maximum allowed under the Act, Cl s it week, for the maintenance of oiu it i if the complainants. J