MAINTENANCE AND SEPARATION CLAIM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2582, 19 May 1923, Page 3

MAINTENANCE AND SEPARATION CLAIM.

GORE V. GORE. At the local S.M. Court yesterday before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., Elsie Maria Gore (Mr Hollings) proeroded against her husband John Gore (Mr Tremaine) for separation and maintenance. Plaintiff said she was married in 1010. She was in. ill health and about to undergo an operation and was unable to maintain herself. Defendant had left. Foxton but had sent her £2 per week up to March last, since when lie had not contributed anything. He was still living away from Foxton. She gave him no reason to leave home. The cottage she lived in was her own. She provided the home when they were married. She also kept fowls, hut was disposing of them. Her husband published a notice refusing to pay her debts.

Bv Mr Tremaine: She did not receive an offer of £1,200 for the property. Her husband gave her what money he earned prior to his leaving. He was a flaxeutter. His earnings were about £3 per week more or less. He did not offer to look after the poultry. Accounts were paid regularly before defendant went away. She had ordered clothing in excess of the £2 jxer week allowance. Did not know her husband’s wages were only £4 8s per week and that he had to pay 30s per week board which after paying her allowance left him only 18s per week and that out of his allowance he had purchased a suit of clothes. She admitted sending defendant a lei ter. produced, containing certain accusations. The letter was written because of her husband’s insnlis. Defendant offered to come hack on condition that she gave him half share in the property. Tn addressing the S.M. Mr Tremaine said that Gore had stopped his remit lances after receiving the lei ter containing certain accusations and the statement that she didn’t want anything to do with him. Tn reply to Mr Tremaine, claimant said she had employed a man to do general work about the place at 25 per week and found. She was, not prepared to live with her husband unless his behaviour was different from wlmt it had been. To Mr Hollings : Her husband had been previously divorced. Tire property was her own, having been purchased with her previous husband’s money. She would rather not live with her husband again. To Mr Tremaine: She had mortgaged her property to buy fowls. In reply to defendant’s counsel the S.M. said it was not compulsory for plaintiff to offer defendant a home.

Mr Tremaine said the only reason why defendant left Foxton was that there was no work for him to go to. TTe had contracted rhuematism while (laxeutting. He had obtained work r.l Christchurch and was contemplating settling in Wellington, where he was prepared to establish home.

The S.M. is giving judgment said that complainant should have left well alone. She was in receipt of C2 per week until she had written the letters. TTis failure to have sent maintenance may have been complainant's own fault if she sent such letters. As defendant was earning 13/- per day, lie could allow 30/- per week for maintenance, hut he would not make an order for separation. First payment to he made on 25th inst.. solicitor’s fee £1 Is.

Mr Hollings asked for past maintenance but this was refused on the ground that complainant had sufficient assets.