LEGAL BATTLE IN THE COE-PALMER SUIT

NZ Truth, Issue 1210, 7 February 1929, Page 3

LEGAL BATTLE IN THE COE -PALMER SUIT

THOSE TANGLED SKEINS

Finality Reached In Involved Maintenance Dispute A MATRIMONIAL JIG-SAW

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special "Wellington Representative)

=J I II I I I I I M I I M I I I M I II M I I II M I I 1 1 11 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II t i 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 M U l l l l l iI: I n I M I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I M II I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1I I M 1 1 1 If T I II I I M I I I I I tt 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 | ; The Coe-Palmer maintenance dispute which arose m Wei- j | lington some time ago and which was dealt with m a recent 1 | issue of "N.Z. Truth" has at last been solved. Coe and the | | woman who was once his wife, but who is now a Mrs. Palmer, I I came before Magistrate McNeil a few days ago, when the | | matter was again threshed out, f

THE trouble originated just before Christmas, when a warrant of arrest was issued against Norman Coe for disobedience of a maintenance order made m favor of his erstwhile wife — who for the past year and ahalf has been married, to a man named Palmer. When the matter came before Magistrate Salmon m December, Lawyer Sievwright, who appeared for Coe, stated that the order m favor of Pearl Coe, who was legally then nonexistent, should have ceased when. she married Palmer. There had been some! £50 overpaid. Coe had been under the impression he was paying maintenance for his child. Counsel maintained that Mrs. Palmer's solicitors had been acting improperly when they issued complaints for disobedience of the order under the name of Pearl Coe. Lawyer Leicester, for Mrs. Palmer, however, said Magistrate Hunt originally made the order m favor of the wife to collect, but it was for the maintenance of the child, and Coe knew this. He' objected to Lawyer Sievwright's allegations, and said he could call evidence to substantiate what he asserted was the true position of affairs. The arresting warrant having been suspended, Magistrate McNeil had a thorny problem to settle when the matter came before him. Coe's counsel filed an application to have the offending order cancelled, while Lawyer Leicester, though not admitting that the old order was ineffective, applied for a new one for the support of Mrs. Palmer's child, by her first husband. After both counsel had clearly stated their case, Lawyer Leicester said that if there had been any mistake it may have been on the part of the court. If Coe's counsel would withdraw his charges of dishonesty, he would be pre-

imi(iiiiiiiimiiiiiiMiiiiniiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii pared, providing Coe would maintain the child, to let the old order be cancelled, and then evidence could be proceeded with m respect of the fresh application fo ( r maintenance. If counsel refused to do this he would call evidence to prove that the old order was made m favor of the child and not the mother, although Mrs. Coe's name appeared on it. Lawyer Sievwright said he didn't impute dishonesty to hfs friend, but he did say it was improper for a clerk m his employ to swear out an information before a justice of the peace m the name of Pearl Coe, when he must have known that she had long since re- married. Lawyer Leicester then placed Coe's 'former solicitor, Lawyer Martin Luckle, iri the box. Lawyer Luckie said he acted for Goe when the order was made on June 5, 1922. Coe's attitude was that he always accepted liability for the maintenance of the child, but he never accepted responsibility for his wife's. The allegations of fraud were absurd, he said. He had inferential authority to consent to an order for the child. He had nothing to do with the fixing of the amount. That was done by the magistrate. Witness could only consent to an order for 10/- a week for the child. The order, he felt sure, was made for the child's maintenance, but m answer to Lawyer Sievwright, Lawyer . Luckie I said be could not be certain whether he was m court at the time or not. He had no records' to that effect. Lawyer Sievwright: The court records say there was no appearance of the defendant. Lawyer Leicester: But that -doesn't say his solicitor was not here. Lawyer Sievwright: Of course it does. "No appearance of defendant," he quoted. Pearl Palmer* Coe's former wife, m the witness-box, told the court that ever since she parted from her husband she had never received maintenance for herself." She was iri" court m 1922 when the order was made and did not ask for maintenance for herself, but for the child. ' ' •■■'-. ■ ■ When Lawyer Sievwright drew witness' attention to : the fact that! the original application cited her as the applicant for. maintenance, Mrs. Palmer said if that wereV so the order was really' required .'.for the child.

Her solicitors, she told the court, always collected the money for her, which had been spent on the child. Coe knew perfectly well she was getl ting a divorce and also that she was remarrying. Coe wrote to her and addressed the letter to Mrs. Palmer. Under cross-examination, Mrs. Palmer said she did not remember whether Coe was m court at the time the order was made. Lawyer Sievwright: When he and his solicitor did not appear, you had what is commonly known as a walk-over? — I don't know. , Counsel: I suppose you were quite happy about it? You were previously getting 10/- a week for the child. Further questioned, Mrs. Palmer said she signed receipts for the maintenance cheques from her solicitors as Pearl Coe after her marriage to Palmer. Counsel: You knew that wasn't your name. • ' , . In answer to this Mrs. Palmer said she didn't know the order was made for her. When it was made she did not know whether the court knew her husband was earning 30/- a week, or whether the court had said Coe could afford two-thirds of it for her and the child's support. To Magistrate McNeil, Mrs. Palmer said when she instructed her solicitor^ to make application to the court, she' expected to get the money for her child. • She always regarded it m that light. Coe, m the box, described himself as a farm laborer, at present out of employment. In 1922 he instructed Lawyer Luckie to appear for him. Lawyer Sievwright: And he did not do so. "' " . : This thrust caused quite a breeze between counsel, Lawyer Leicester remarking that his friend had not said that when Mr. Luckie was m court. ' Lawyer Sievwright: Oh, yes, I did.

litiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiinik He didn't appear; the court records prove it. Further argument between counsel was stopped by the bench intimating to Coe's counsel that he could get on with the case. Continuing, Coe said he gave no instruction for consent to an order. About two months ago he first heard his" wife was remarried. He told Lawyer Leicester he heard Mrs. Coe had changed her name to Palmer, but' he received no reply. : Witness said he knew definitely just before Christmas that it was a fact. He never considered he was paying £1 for the' child alone. The warrant was for two months' imprisonment for failure to pay Pearl Coe. To Lawyer Leicester, Coe said he was prepared to maintain the child to, a certain extent, but admitted there had been a large number of disobedience summonses issued against him. Prior to December, 1928, he had not made any complaint to the court or to anyone else that the payment on the order was for anyone but the child. Lawyer Leicester: You are prepared to maintain the "child? I—Yes.1 — Yes. Lawyer Sievwright: If he's liable.. • After further legal argument by both counsel concerning the cancellation of the order, the bench said he would like time thoroughly ■to consider the matter. He would adjourn the question of maintenance for a fortnight and would then give his decision. The warrant of arrest would be further suspended. Lawyer Leicester: At the same time I hope your worship will deal with the question of dishonesty. It is a matter of some moment to me. When giving his reserved decision on. the question of cancellation of the order, his worship said that on the face value, he must take it that the moneys were to be paid for the future maintenance of Pearl Coe. Although the order was m her name, prior to her marriage to Palmer, Mrs. Palmer stated the money was for the thild. His worship, however, said he was bound by the terms of the original order. 'It would be cancelled as from the date of Pearl Coe's marriage to Palmer on April 14, 1927, and all arrears re- ■•■'■"*. . , ' ... ■. ":.. .. The application for the future main;ou....v... . ii:-. cnild is to be dealt Avith it a later date. : . „