FAMILY AT LAW

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 208, 27 April 1932, Page 6

FAMILY AT LAW

support of sister application under d.p. act successfully defended A case presenting some unusual features came before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Rotorua Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Ada Baldwin, married woman, of Rotoroa, made application under the Destitute Persons Act for a court order, directing her sister, Emily Ingram, of Ngongotaha, and her brother William Henry Matthew Monkley, of Turau, to contribute to the support of an unmarried sister, May Maria Monkley. It was claimed by the applicant, that her sister, May Monkley, was a destitute person and that she was physically incapable of supporting herself. She brought evidence to show that four members of the family had expressed their willingness to assist. in her support, but asked the court that the brother and sister named in the application should also be ordered to contribute. . Evidence of family dissensions was revealed during the case, one section of the family alleging thqt their sister Mrs. Ingram would not give the girl proper treatment. After hearing the evidence, however, the Magistrate decided that Mrs. Ingram could not be called upon to contribute owing to her circumstances, while he also dismissed the case against William Henry Matthew Monkley after this defendant had intimated his willingness to assist in some degree. His Worship suggested that 10s a week would be ample maintenance to be paid to Mrs. Baldwin on behalf of the girl and suggested that the various members of the family should compound to make up that amount. Mr. J. D. Davys appeared for the applicant, and Mr. E. Roe for Mrs. Ingram. Monkley defended. his own case.

Physically Incapable Ada Baldwin, the applicant, stated that she had been maintaining her sister, May Monkley, since February 4 last. Her sister was physically incapable of earning her own living and she could not carry the burden alone. Her husband was earning only £2 a week and she had a child of her own to support. She considered that her sister and brother, along with other members of the family should contribute something. Her father, George Monkley deceased, died interstate and his affairs were in the hands of the Public Truste'e. Four members of the family had signed a request to the Public Trustee to allocate a sum of £1 a week toward the support of her sister, May. Her mother was receiving one-third of the income from the estate and the remaining members of the family divided the remaining two-thirds. Witness had received about £22 from the estate. There were eight members of the family exclusive of her mother. In reply to Mr. Roe, Mrs. Baldwin said that she did not know what her share of the estate was worth. None of the members of the family were wealthy. All were working people and she suggested that they should contribute accordi'ng to their means. Witness said that she was not aware chat her sister, Mrs. Ingram, had offered to find a home for May on a farm at Kaharoa. Asked whether this would alter her viewpoint, the witness said that it would not. Too Harsh Mr. Roe: But why? She is too harsh, May must be led not driven. • Enlarging on this point, Mrs. Baldwin said that Mrs. Ingram was "merely a sister." She was not antagonistic to her but would not say whether she cared for her or not. She had not spolcen to her for two years and a-half. Mrs. Ingram had said ,hat she was "done with the family.'' She did not ask May to do any worlc because she was not capable of doing it. Witness said she knew nothing of her mother's financial position. She was at present living in Australia, and had been living apart from her father prior to his death. Witness did not reply when the Magistrate asked whether there was any reason why an order should not be made against her mother for the support of her sister. Her mother was of a considerable age, however, witness observed. Mr. Davys suggested that there might be some difficulty in dealing with Mrs. Monkley if she was absent in Australia. The Magistrate-: * Not a bit. We have the estate here. Nervous Wreck A brother, Thomas Monkley, of Wellington, said that he did not approve of his sister being under the care of Mrs. Ingram. The girl had been a nervous wreck when she returned from the farm where she had been under the care of Mrs. Ingram. May suffered from a mental defect and could not be asked to work. He considered that the best arrangement would be to place May in charge of Mrs. Baldwin, who would give her a good home. He did not eonsider, however, that Mrs. Baldwin could be asked to carry the whole burden of her support. She was not in a position to^o so. Mr. Roe: You have not much of an opinion of your sister, Mrs. Ingram? Not much. You suggest that she would not loolc after the girl, that she would be cruel to her? I do, she is capable- of it. Pressed further, witness said that he considered that it was a disgrace that they should have to bring other •members of the family to court to make them support a sister who was not able to look after herself. Ile knew Mrs. Baldwin would loolc after the girl, but in his opinion, Mrs. Ingram only wanted something for nothing. Mr. Davys then called May Monkley, who gave her evidence- obviously under considerable nervous stress. She said that she did not wish to go back to Mrs. Ingram at the farm because Mrs. Ingram had not been kind to her. Mrs. Baldwin on the- other hand, looked after her and she wished to stay with her. James Baldwin, husband of the applicant, said that he did not believe that May would be properly treated if she went to Mrs. Ingram. When the girl had returned from Mrs. Ingram's farm she had been afraid to speak and had burst into tears if spoken to. Mr. Roe applied for a non suit on the grounds that sufficient evidence

had not been adduced to show that the girl was destitute. The Magistrate ruled, however, that there was sufficient evidence for the case to proceed. Emily Elizabeth Ingram in evidence said that she had offered to talce" care of the girl free of charge. She emphatically denied she had been unlcind to the- girl. When May had been with her on the fai'm, she had done no work at all and had been well treated. She would not even make her own bed. It had been her father's wish that the girl should be kept out of town.and on the farm. Witness herself was living with one of her sons who had a share milking contract. Y/itness- had no other assets but her share in the estate. Witness suggested that the girl had been infiuenced by Mrs.- Baldwin in her refusal to cone to her. Her husband was only working half time. She considered that the girl was quite able to work if she wished to do so. In reply to Mr. Davys, witness said that her mother had been in Australia for 34 years and was keeping a miners' boarding-house. Her mother stated that she owned this board-ing-house. Her son was on wages drawing £3 a week, but she was lucky if she received 10s a week from her husband after he had paid _iis back accounts. Her son also received free milk, butter, firewood, a free house and a certain amount of meat. A Little Strict In reply to the Magistrate, Mrs. Ingram reiterated that she had treated the girl kindly. She had had to be a little strict with her at first owing to her habits, but she had always been kind to her. Another brother, Matthew William Monkley, said that he- had never been asked properly to assist witb the support of his sister. After his father's death, he had suggested that the income of the farm should be devoted to the support of May, but the other members of the family had refused to entertain the idea. He had a family of six children all under 15 years of age to support and had as much as he could do to keep them. He contendecl that he had never been properly acquainted with the position, and that his brother in Australia who was in a good position, should also be joined in the application. He could not see his way clear to contribute 25s a week towards the girl's support, but he would subscribe to a lesser amoupt. In reply to the Magistrate, Mr. Davys said that the income from the estate was only 10s a week, and it was suggested that the remainder of the family should compound to make up £1. The Magistrate expressed the opinion that 10s a week was quite sufficient for the girl's support. It was quite ridiculous to talk about £1 a week oi' 25s a week. So far as Mrs. Ingram was concerned, she was not a person of sufficient ability to contribute under the Act. Matthew William Monkley appeared to have unnecessarily been brought into the case. The case against him should be dismissed. He thought that if the members of the family compounded to make up 10s toward the girl's support, that would be sufficient.