CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2166, 21 August 1920, Page 3

CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE.

At yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.AL, Charles Dix was charged. on the information of his wife, Emily E. Dix (Air Daniell), with failing lo provide her and her four children with adequate anil sufficient maintenance.

Mrs Dix gave evidence as to the various aiuaimls she had received from her husband during the last nine months. From November to •January the amount received was £29 5s Od, and from (he end of January to the end of June she only received £7 (is 9d 'from him, and from that dale up to the present lime a further £ii 5s (Id had been paid over. The fourth child was born in May las!, and during that month ail ■die nveived from defendan! was fourteen shillings. At the present time her mother was keeping the eldest child. Witness said that she had gone out to work to try and maintain herself and, the children, but the doctor bad since ordered her mu to do any work' for four mouths. She was behind with the rent ol' the house, and the landlord had threatened to evict her. Constable O-’Jfonoghue slated that on June JOtli complainant called on witness and complained that her husband had failed to maintain her, sud that she had no fond in the house. At her mjnest witness visited the house, and found that there was no food there. The same conditions cxf-iid in the lioiisc on August siii. The defendant, Charles tJix, denied that he failed to maintain the complainant and the children. He said that all tlie trouble had arisen because his wife had wanted to •‘wear the trousers,’’ ami he had objected to that. In addition to the money which ho laid given hi-' wife and which he contended was much more than the amounts she had mentioned, lie hud a iso bought and

paid for meat, bread, and groceries. Tf the cupboard was bare when l!u* policeman called il \v:is not witness' fault, as lie had given his wife £2 bs only a day or so before. ant was continuing to make a long statement when the Magistrate said he did not want to hear any more. He was satisfied the defendant had not done as mueli for his family as he should have done. An order would he made for the payment of £1 per week in respect of the wife, and live shillings per week each for the four children, £2 per week in all, with costs £1- Is ()d.