MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 September 1919, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr W. E. McKean, S.M.) ALLEGED BREAKING, ENTERING AN THEFT. Francis Douglas Still was charged with breaking and entering and theft from a dwelling. Sub-Inspector Hntton said the accused was concerned in other charges in which another offender had been remanded until the 9th inst., and he ashed for a remand to the same date. The remand was granted, bail being allowed, accused in £25 and one surety of £25. • PROHIBITION ORDER. '••' On the application of his wife, at his own request, a prohibition order was made against Joseph Moody, to take effect in New Plymouth and the County of Tarauaki.

FAILING TO ATTEND DRILL. Rifleman C. J. Clarke pleaded guilty to fajling to attend drill during the past six months, as required by the Defence Act. Lieut. Ward stated that matters in the Territorials locally had not been conducted as they should have been, and there was some excuse for the young fellows not observing the notices pent to them. He did not press for a penalty, as defendant had pleaded guilty. In reply to the Magistrate defendant said he had simply neglected to attend drill. A conviction was recorded but no fine imposed. BOROUGH BY-LAWS.

Albert Gamer was charged with rid;ng a motor cycle at night, on June 21st, without having a proper light attached. Defendant did not appear and was fined 20s (costs 7s). Albert E. Magon was charged with that being the driver of a licensed vehicle he failed to face it in the proper direction on the stand set aside for such vehicles. Inspector Day detailed the proceedings of the Borough Council in making the various stands for motor vehicles, and stated that the idea of requiring those on one stand in Ariki street to face in a westerly direction and those on the other stand to face east was to regulate the motor traffic so that it would not all come into the same street. . Inspector King stated that when the resolution was passed by the council he personally interviewed the licensed drivers and explained what was required. Since then, however, Magon nad persistently refused to observe the by-law, and in spite of warnings had defied the inspector. Since the summons had been issued he had taken up his proper stand. A fine of 10s (costs 7s) was inflictedMAINTENANCE CASES.

George Livingstone Brett (Mr A. A. Bennett) pleaded not guilty to a charge of being £l4O in arrears in respect to an order for the maintenance of his wife and two children, made on May 30, 1913. The complainant (Evelyn Brett), stated that no payments had been made since the order was obtained and she was unable to maintain herself and children. In reply to Mr Bennett she said she was married to defendant in 1906 and she believed he was then about 19- A few months ago she obtained a divorce from him, and got custody of the children. She had been seven years away from her husband and had helped to keep herself and tliem by working. She had worked in dining rooms at Fcilding, and was at present engaged in ?imilar work in New Plymouth, for which she received 17s 6d per week. She lived at present with her father and had also living with her a child of her sister, the latter having died in the epidemic. Her father was a retired farmer. He did not have to work, but Bhc had no idea as to what he was worth. - He had been allowing her £lO a month, but new arrangements were perfding and he had told her he could only allow her 10s a week for do»ing the housework. He thought the father of her two children should maintain them. Defendant had never even offered to do anything. She would have been satisfied if he had tried to help. She believed he had a pension of £4 17s fid a month. She had heard that lie intended getting married again and thought' if he could do that he could support his children. Witness denied that she had become engaged to be married since getting a divorce from defendant. I

Mr Bennett said the defence would be a plea of incapacity. If he could defendant would have helped but lie had come back from the war totally disabled, and had practically no chance of earning anything, and it was impossible to comply with the order, as all he had was his pension of £4 17s 6d per month In evidence defendant stated he enlisted for active service in Australia in 1916, being over there in search for work at the time. He was wounaed in September 1017, and in June 1918, on the later occasion losing his right arm. He returned home at the beginning of the present year, and underwent treatment in the New Plymouth Hospital. The effect of his wounds had been to leave his heart and lungs weak. Dr. Walker had declared him permanently disabled and said he should do no manual work. He lived with his sister, Mrs Street, who lost her husband at the war, and was 'eft with several little children, and she was not able to assist him. His parents were dead and his brothers and sisters could give him no help. The pension he had was from the Commonwealth Government arid amounted to 22s Od per week. He paid his sister £1 per week for board and lodging. He was 17 years old when ho married.

In answer to complainant as to who drew his pay and allowances while he was away, defendant said his sister did, but all the money was sentrfo him except about £2O, and when lie got back to Sydney he had to send for some of that in order to pay his own passage back to New Zealand. The rest he had to spend in outfit. The Magistrate: Why was no action taken before to recover the maintenance? Complainant: Because he went away under an assumed name and his whereabouts could not be traced. Defendant stated that his wife had been carrying on with other men, and when her father took her and the chil-. dren into his home witness thought he was prepared to Seep them. He always understood her father was well-to-do. Mr Bennett said he had tried to arrange for the attendance of Dr. Walker, but on account of his work at the hospital he could not be present at the time of the hearing. If necessary he would ask for an adjournment in order to secure the doctor's attendance. The Magistrate said he would like to hear medical testimony as to defendant's condition and the hearing was accordingly adjourned until Saturday morning Elsie Vera Francis applied for an order for past and future maintenance against her hiftband, Alf Ashley Franfto, btttahw, NftuUr, and for lejaaUiw,

and guardianship of lior (wo children. Mr A. A. Bennett appeared for complainant who stated she had been mar- < ried in January, 1915, at Waihi, Auckland. They separated by mutual consent in August, IMS, her husband agreeing to contribute .10s per week towards the support of witness and the two children. There was no written agreement. . Since then she had received £:i(l Ills. Her husband was a butcher and usually occupied the position of second shopman. She believed he had had a slight accident . lately which had incapacitated him in the meantime. His earnings were from ■ £4 to £4 )0s per week. An order was made for £l9 arrears or ; maintenance and .£2 per week future maintenance, the arrears to be paid off at the rate of £1 per week. The order for separation, and guardianship of the children, was also made. Two guineas costs were allowed.