MAINTENANCE CASE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4722, 9 July 1924, Page 2

MAINTENANCE CASE.

RESERVED DECISION GIVEN. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. At the Pacrpa Magistrate's Court on Monday, June 23, a special sitting was held to hear the maintenance case of Paul Paulson (Mr C. N. O'Neill) against Messrs G. H., W. M., T. J„ R. J. and A. R. Barton (Mr R. S. Carden), in which the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £5l ss. The statement of claim set out that the defendants had agreed to pay to plaintiff the sum of 25s a week as from May 1, 1924, in consideration of which plaintiff undertook to pay £2 o week for the support and maintenance of Mary Ann Paulsen, who was at that time the wife of plaintiff and mother of the defendants. The claim stated that plaintiff had paid the £2 a week from the date agreed upon up to February 2, 1924, but the defendants had failed to pay the 25s a week, and there was due to plaintiff arrears amounting to £57 ss. Mr O’Neill outlined the case and stated that it was a question of law on .the matter of the agreement. Paul Paulson, Nethertpn, farmer, said that he had married Mary Anne Barton, on April 2, 1918. On February 2, 1920, the parties agreed to separate. At the time of the marriage plaintiff had a family of five children, who were sent to Auckland in December, 1919, owing to differences that occurred with his wife. At this time he was in partnership with his stepson, W. M. Barton, one of the defendants. Some time afterwards he had met his wife in Paeroa, and she had told him that she intended returning to him and that he had better get his children out of the house. In answer to the Bench plaintiff said that he had got his children back again from Auckland when his wife left him. He. remembreed the signing of the agreement in May, 1920, for the payment of £2 a week maintenance, and also a later agreement signed in July, 1920. The matter referred to in both agreements had been decided on by all parties concerned. In December, 1920, he had received a summons for arrears of maintenance.

Plaintiff gave; evidence that maintenance at the rate of £2 a week had been paid in full. Subsequently, under- advice, he had allowed himself to get into arrear. Divorce proceeding were instituted at about tlxat time, but they were abandoned and it was decided to test the order at the Magistrate’s Court on August 29, 1920. At that hearing the agreement was upheld and an order for £2 a week was made. From that time on the £2 was paid xr.to Court. Plaintiff said that he had not lived with his wife since the agreement wa»s signed, and the payments had bejen kept up to February 18, 1924.

Cross-examined by Mr Carden, plaintiff admitted that the £2 a week maintenance had been, made up by the five defendants agreeing to pay 5s a week each and plaintiff 15s, which had not been carried out. There had been no serious difficulty in collecting the contributions from the defendants. He had obtained a decree nisi on August 17, 1923, and he did not remembex- that the Court had made an ordex* fox- maintenance. Receipts had been given to defendants for all the maintenance monies received. A. R. Barton was a junior when the agreement was signed, and he had been considerably in arrears right through.

To His Worship plaintiff admitted that the agreement had been made out by himself and W. M. Barton, and afterwards a named Carter came into the picture and the agreement was drawn up by Mr Ppritt in the pxesenee of himself, Carter, and W. M. Barton.

Mi- Carden moved for a pan-suit on the grounds thjit liability had not been established, in that the defendants were not jointly and severally liable under the agreement. .

At the requesti of the Bench formal evidence was given by Mrs Anne Paulsen, of Whakatane, that her .son, A. R. Barton, was 21 years of age on December 18, 1923.

Mr OfNeill argued that plaintiff was not liable for any default on the part of the defendants, and quoted authorities in support of his contention. He maintained that the agreement was entered into between two parties only, and that joint liability existed. After hearing further leagl argument the MagSstrae reserved his decision until the sitting of the Court on Monday last, when he delivered a lengthy written decision- in which Judgment was entered for the defendants with costa amounting to £6 6s. An order was made for payment to T. J. and R. J- Barton of the amounts paid into Coulrt by them with denial of liability.