Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PITIFUL CASE

WIFE LEFT DESTITUTE TO SUPPORT HERSELF AND CHILDREN. HUSBAND JUST OUT OF GAOL. Described as a pitiful case, "proeeedings .were taken in the Rotorua Magistrate's Court yesterday against a man named Albert Edward Rankin for arrears on a mamtenance order. Mr. J. Burton, who handled the proceedings, stated that defendant's wife, in respect of whom the order was made, was quite destitute and had five young children to support. Sent to Gaol. Defendant was at present employed on a farm, where he was receiv- ■ ing 25s a week in addition to his keep. He was also receiving 10s a week soldier's pension. Efforts had been made to have this pension diverted to the wife, but the Pensions Department had stated that this could not he done unless the defendant was in gaol. A complaint had been brought and Rankin had been sentenced to three months imprisonment, during yrhich time the w*'fe had received the pension. He had now been discharged for some time, however, but since his discharge he had made no effort to make any payments. The wife was receiving nothing and struggling along, trying to keep the children. Out Only a Week. The magistrate said that the defendant had only been out of gaol a week and it would not be justice to send the man straightbaek to gaol. He must be given a chance to make a payment. Mr. Burton said he had understood that Rankin had been discharged longer than a week, but the court clearly stated that the execution of the warrant had been delayed. Mr. Burton pointed out that Rankiia was receiving 35s a week over and above his keep, while the wife, who had the children to suppoi*t, was getting nothing. The magistrate, howevei*, stated that he would have to d'smiss the complaint, but defendant could be notified that unless he made some payments he would be sent back to gaol again.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RMPOST19311124.2.54

Bibliographic details

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 79, 24 November 1931, Page 6

Word Count
321

PITIFUL CASE Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 79, 24 November 1931, Page 6

PITIFUL CASE Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 79, 24 November 1931, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert