MAINTENANCE CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 1466, 30 October 1915, Page 3

MAINTENANCE CASE.

WANKLYN v. WANKLYN

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Gertrude Adeline Wanklyn applied for a' separation order against her husband, Cyril Bernard Wanklyn, with maintenance lor herselt and two children and custody of the children. When the case was called, the Clerk of the Court said that Mr Cooper, who was appearing tor complainant, had telephoned stating that, Mr Gifford Moore, who represented defendant, had intimated that he intended asking for an adjournment. The Magistrate said that no application for an adjournment had been made. Mr R. Moore said that he was not appearing in the case, but Mr Gifford Moore had informed him that an adjournment had been arranged, and in consequence the defendant was not present.

The Magistrate said that he would hear the complainant, and 11 the defendant was not satisfied he could apply for a re-hearing. He would only take evidence as to the necessity of maintenance, the application for a separation order could be dealt with if a re-hearing was asked for.

The complainant, in evidence, stated that she was married to defendant in Sydney, and there were two children of the marriage, one aged three years and oue aged eighteen months. Defendant was at present employed scutching at Gibbs’ mill, and his earnings last fortnight were ,£lO 2s, but they were not always as ranch as that. Her husband was constantly drinking and gambling, and did not provide her with sufficient money to keep the home and clothe herself. He gave her £2 a fortnight, and squandered the rest, and had recently put an advertisement in the newspaper to the effect that he would not be responsible for debts contracted in his name. Some time back he was out of work for seven months, and although he knew there was practically nothing lu the house, what money he had he squandered in drink and gambling. Witness said she wanted the custody of the two children. Defendant’s mother had taken the eldest boy, and refused to allow him to come back. She was doing her best to turn the boy against complainant. The Magistrate suggested that it would be best to try and arrange a settlement out of court, but witness said that she had tried to do so, but failed. The Magistrate said that he would make an order lor maintenance in the meantime, and if necessary the whole matter could be gone into fully later on. Defendant would be ordered to pay 30s per week towards the maintenance of complainant, complainant to have the custody of the child Walter. The question of the maintenance and custody of the child Endell to remain over until the Court sitting on November’ 26th. The Magistrate suggested that defendant settle the matter out of Court.