Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 907, 8 January 1881, Page 4

The case of Robert Houlden, whom the Resident Magistrate committed to gaol, on Thursday last, on warrant to appear in Auckland to answer a charge of failing to provide for his mother, seems to demand something more than a passing notice at our hands. Houlden s position is a painfully complicated one, and is surrounded by circumstances that force themselves on public observation, and suggest such an alteration in our statute law as will take from a man’s poverty the stigma of infamy and disgrace. Houlden, it appears, has the misfortune to have an aged mother, who cannot maintain herself; and very naturally looks to her son for such support as he can afford to give. But it transpires that he in reality cannot afford to give anything, as he has a wife and family to keep, and is, moreover, out of employment. Hitherto he has contributed to his mother’s support, and only failed in filial obligation when necessity compelled him. Want stares him and his wife and children in the face, and he positively swears he has not the means to assist his mother. To make the matter worse his mother is in Auckland, and the magistrate, seeing no way to deal with the case himself, had to remand Houlden, under recognizance to appear there and answer to the charge. Now what appears to make this case peculiar is the apparent anomalous state of the law. A man, professedly unable to provide for his own immediate wants, without difficulty, is incarcerated, his liberty taken from him, and his means as a bread-winner cut off —to send him 300 miles away at the expense of the colony, merely to prove his poverty; and then he may find his way back to his family as best he can. What Houlden’s means are we know not, and it is a question outside the one we are now considering, namely, the extreme absurdity of the law compelling two wrongs to be done, with the very probable result of the right not being established. Mr. Price, doubtless, interprets his powers with due correctness ; but it is quite obvious that, if Houlden is evading his just responsibility here, by an abstention from truth as to his means, he will be more successful in eluding enquiry as to his “ sufficient ability ” to support his parent, in Auckland, where his circumstances are not known. It may not be the rule, but it would, certainly, obviate a great deal of undue severity and hardship, if evidence under certain circumstances were taken at places, other than that whence a warrant issues. In the present instance no possible harm could ensue ; but had Houlden been examined in Gisborne, a deal of useless red-tape would have been dispensed with ; justice to all parties would have been dealt out; and the truth of Houlden’s statement would have been tested with greater exactitude than is likely to be the case in Auckland.