MAINTENANCE OFFICERS

Hokitika Guardian, 18 September 1930, Page 2

MAINTENANCE OFFICERS

THEIR POWERS IN COURT

QUESTION FROM THE BAR

WELLINGTON, September 15. Rarely- indeed is an attempt rnacle in the Magistrate’s Court to prevent, the Maintenance Officer from handling a case which lie has elected to conduct. A halt was called to-day, however, on behalf of the legal profession, by- Mr .Si evwright, one of whose clients asked for tlie variation of a maintenance order. When tlie case was called, Mr Pearson, the Maintenance, Officer signified Ills intention of conducting the case for tlie other party, who was absent. Mr Sicvwright’s client had disobeyed the maintenance order in force in Dunedin, and the Maintenance Officer at Dunedin had taken steps accordingly. Mr Pearson had been asked to appear for the woman in whose favour the order was made.

“1; submit)** said Mr Sievwrigiit, “that Air Pearson has no right of inter fel-ence—iio locits stalidi— ill proceedings of this type. His duties are clearly laid down in Section 9 of the Act, and he is authorised to recover pay-ments of money due under a maintenance order, but he is not authorised to act in this sort of case.

“My point is this,” Mr Sievwrigiit continued. “I think that we ought justly to define the authority of the Maintenance Officer, because it is so dearly defined by- the Statute. Mr Pearson has no locus standi in th.s type of case. It is a solicitor’s job.

“This, order was made in Dunedin and\ the Maintenance Officer there 4egan proceeding. A warrant was issued for my client, but instead of the solicitorwho has already communicated ou behalf of the woman being here we find Mr Pearson hero ready, to conduct the case for her. He has no right as Maintenance Officer to appear in these proceedings.” Mr Pearson, in justification, said that the provision in the Statute was a wide one. He quoted the Act: “The Maintenance Officer is purely appointed under this Act to appear lor the women who are in bad circumstances and unable to afford a solicitor.” “In this case,”, he said, .“tne woman has written and asked to be represented by the Maintenance Officer for those reasons.” Tlie Magistrate (Mr ~ McNeil): Supposing the summons had been issued hei'O) instead of in Dunedin? Could you flet then P Mr SievWi'ight s I hold that he could not act even then. This is an application for a variation, not for tno recovery of moneys. From a professional point of- view, only two people can appear in a variation proceeding of this type, only the party or the solicitor.

Mr Pearson: But when .the party is in poor circumstances;' Mr Siovwright: Well, what .about the man? You don’t appear Jor’.him, do you ?

The Magistrate (to Mr Pearson) Where are your duties set out? Are they set out in Section 8 ? Mr Pearson: Yes, in Section 9, Subsection 3. Bait this has been done for years.' Why hasn’t my learned friend brought the .same question up before? If this point is decided against the Maintenance Officer, it will mean that the Maintenance Officer will go. What will happen if a woman is too poor to get representation ? Mr Siovwright: She will have to appear herself. The Magistrate: I think Mr Pearson should be allowed to appear n this. Mr Sievv, right: I say that Mr Pearson has been appearing in the past wrongly, because he lias appeared Toi plaintiff when foreign orders have come into this Court. We hear that the Maintenance Officer is a very busy man. The Magistrate: Well he has only done what his predecessors have clone. Mr Siovwright: 1 have no objection to his appearing in this case, but as a member .of the legal profession l think we ought to have an authority. The Magistrate: I will take the opportunity of looking into it. i