WELL-KNOWN JUSTICE ARRESTED

NZ Truth, Issue 1180, 12 July 1928, Page 11

WELL-KNOWN JUSTICE ARRESTED

Wife of J. B. Westlake Lays Information Against Him Concerning Maintenance

ALLEGATION r THAT HE INmNDED LEAVING N,Z.

1 i , " - ."- ••/.■•• • x ■ .•■■- ■ . ■ ■■.:.-■' •■•,■. " ■ . , : •■■"..;• ■■']■/ (From "N.Z. Truth's 1 ' Pahiatua Representative.) : . , IVorik £30,000, John Brown Westlake was a, most astonished man when he pas tapped on the shoulder m the main street of Hamilton and informed that he Was under arrest In vain, did he protest to the off icer that he was a man of substance, derived m a manner to leave no. stain on his conscience, and that he

QUIT© oalmly he was told that he was under arrest and that he would have to go to the look-up. Haled before the Hamilton magtfs-; trate on a charge of intending to leave the country without providing hia wife with adequate maintenance, he was allowed out on bail of £60 and his name was suppressed m the meantime, for the 1 case^to be heard at Pahiatua;' where his wife resided. > ' Up6n the charge being again preferred at Pahiatua.last week, Weatlake piea,ded not guilty '■ through Lawyer Harold Cooper, of Palmerston North.;. . Lawyer G.H., Smith, who appeared m support of the information, explained that the parties had for some time past been living ; apart, defendant paying his wife.--maintenance under. an agreement. Westlake had put his farm on the market and expressed h ls intention to leave the country as soon as he could dispose of it. . Information to this effect had been received, by Mrs. Westlake m a letter and she had acted upon it. •' Counsel asked that an order be made to take evidence before another maglsj trate. •-■ ) >' . If, however, defendant had no intention of leaving the country, It would be satisfactory if an order, were made for maintenance m place of the existing agreement. Defendant had- separated himself socially from his family and Mrs. Westlake felt that at any time-he might leave New Zealand. Since the institution of the proceedings, < Westlake had not communicated with his wife, whose difficulty m obtaining assistance from him would be great wefe he to. go to the United States, which was believed to be his intention, . The assistance defendant at present gave, his family m no way embarrassed him, as he was very wealthy. Strong .opposition was voiced by counsel for the defendant to the application for evidence to be taken. IIIIIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIiIIIIIIIIM

■ Counsel said that his client was* Indeed wealthy, his assets, m round .figures being £30,000, . but this was mostly m mortgages and freehold lease, which he could not take out of the country with him. , Defendant, had no intention of / Jeaving the country. Under an agreement made m March, 1927, he paid weekly £4.108. to his wife and £2 to his daughter, who was well over 16 years of age. . . These, payments had made regularly without missing a day. . . The reason why the parties m the case had separated was because Mrs. Westlake would not go to the Waikato,' : where- defendant had bought a farm. The farm had hot been a success and defendant had exchanged it for a property at Parramatta. - With regard to a certain letter Mrs. Westlake had received from a brother — into • the matter of . whose character counsel said he would not,

enter— fuller Inquiries- should have bean made first. ■".'■'.. . As It was, defendant had been arrested m Hamilton and taken to the-lock-up. ; The magistrate before whom he was. brought, stated counsel, thought so little of the matter as to, admit West- 1 lake to ball In his own recognisance of £50. Had defendant wanted, he could have left the country then, as £60 was .nothing to him, but, ., lnstead, he had' kept up his payments under the agreement. "The treatment defendant has received, has been not only unreasonable, but disgraceful," remarked counsel.. Surely, he said, some inquiries should have been made. Even if defendant had intended to leave, he .would have left behind big assets. ' \ The parties had been, married for forty. years and Mrs. Westlake could not say that she had not been provided for. : . , ' -■■■ , „.. . ••;.■■■<■

Now, when the. case came to court, counsel for. informant could not'proceed, but must make an application to take evidence. ) *■. "If defendant Is m trouble, he has only himself to blame," said Lawyer Smith, nslng again. "It would • have been of no use' waiting- until , the bird had , flown." , .. ... • ./■ :...• •■ ■■- « ■>■ ■■• Ha Said; that informant had hot been m a position to liriow. whether or not defendant' had .realized on all his assets. : ... . *"■ ■" %.. ;.//.-'....■■ • If Westlak^i '.would have the order for maintenance made, then the proceedings would •' be withdrawn, but otherwise Mrs. Westlake would not be satisfied. '•'«;■- . ■■: ; Lawyer Cooper protested that it was ; a dreadful thing, if every person m New Zealand who was absent from his wife could be arrested on the statement of a person who might or . might hot be responsible. - * . In the present case inquiries could have been made, or, at most, asum'mons issued, but the proceedings had been high -handed to a degree. : ■ Remarking that the proceedings could not be more pleasing to one party than,' to the . other^ Magistrate S. L. P. Free went on to say that he had no means ibf knowing whether or not the information on which the wife had. acted was correct. , ' The only way to find out was to take evidence and for this he would allow an order. . .<■".'' ; The : magistrate pointed out that Westlake was still on .baii. > ■. ■, > ;Thistook Lawyer Smith aback! He remarked that he had no.t expected that position to arise. / .-• '... the' Magistrate: "Well, It has arisen." . ' , v . .- ■ ( Bail was again allowed m the sum of £50 and the case Was adjourned until August. ' ■-. .! The name of Donald Donald, gentleman, 55 Victoria Avenue, Auckland, was mentioned as that of . a person whose ; evidence ' was desired for informant's case. fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuii'n