AN UNUSUAL CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 June 1920, Page 5

AN UNUSUAL CASE.

MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS. A DIVORCEE'S ARREARS. A divorcee was the defendant in a maintenance case presenting some unusual features, which was ventilated in the Magistrate's Court at New Plymouth yesterday before Mr. T. A. *B. Bailey, S.M. William Henderson, laborer, of Wellington (Mr. R. H. Quilliam) was charged under the Destitute Persons Act, with failing to obey the terms of a maintenance order issued two years ago, requiring him to contribute towards the support of his wife and two children, and with being £127 10s in arrears on the order, up to June 9, 1920. Mr. H. R. Billing appeared for the complainant, Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr. Quilliam Said the case was somewhat unusual. Defendant had been divorced by his wife at the latter end of last year, and the decree absolute was r.:ade early in the year. Since his divorce no application for alimony had been made by petitioner, and the maintenance order was still in force. Defendant naturally did not like contributing towards the support of one who was no longer his wife, but he was quite willing to support the children. It was quite likely that had application been made at the divorce proceedings for ali- 1 monv, defendant would have been ordered to support the children. Under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that defendant had had a considerable amount of sickness, and was at present earning barely enough to support himself, Mr. Quilliam suggested a variation of the order, under which defendant would be required to pay 15s a week towards the support of hi? two children. Defendant was anxious to do the best lie could in paying off the arrearf. Mr. Croker said that divorce proceedings were instituted on the grounds that defendant had committed adultery. Defendant did not defend, the action, and the divorce was granted. Mr. Croker asked for 10s a week for each child anij some security for payment of arrears. Since the first proceedings for maintenance, separation and guardianship over two years ago, defendant had paid only £l7. Mr. Quilliam read a certificate given by Dr. Blackley, certifying that defendant was unfit for continuous heavv work.

Mr, Crokcr agreed to amend the claim from £127 to £lOl, which would be up to date the decree absolute was made. The Magistrate asked if defendant could pay £2 a week ofT the arrears. Mr. Quilliam said one way out of the difficulty would bo to adjourn the onse for a month to see what defendant did to pay off the arrears. When the summons was issuad on April 17 last year, the man,was getting £6OO a year. Defendant was then put Into the ; witness box and was examined by Mr. Croker. He said it was imposarfiie for him to say how much he had earned last year, owing to the amount of broken time and sieknesrs he had had. His present earnings averaged from £3 10s to £4 a week. He was a slaughterman at Ngahauranga, but the state of his health prevented liim from working full time.

Mr. Croker: la your real name Lowden or Henderson ?

Defendant: Henderson is my name. It's the only name I ever had. I've Reen my birth certificate, and I was christened William Henderson.

Mr. Croker: At the divorce proceedings, did you say that' you had mar- ! ried your wife under an assumed name and therefore were not married? Defendant: No. Mr. Croker: Did your solicitors say that? Defendant: I helieve so. The Magistrate granted an adjournment for three months, and meanwhile ordered the defendant to pay 35s per week off the arrears, and if there was any default of payment, the complainant could bring the case on at three days' notice. Costs were allowed the complainant.