MAINTENANCE ORDERS.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 September 1921, Page 2

MAINTENANCE ORDERS.

UNUSUAL FEATURES. A FOURTH HUSBAND. At the. S.M. Court, Hawera, on Tuesday, Ellen Martha Peters applied for an order for maintenance of herself and her three children against Arthur Thomas Peters.

Mr. Spratt said defendant was a welt qualified farmer, and there were many occupations which he could follow. He also owned a practically new Nash motor car. Counsel for complainant submitted that £4 a week was tho least that, his client and her children could live on. Counsel for defendant had suggested £2 10s a week.

Mr. Beechey said that there was a limit to defendant’s earning capacity. Defendant had been engaged in business that had not been successful. He was also suffering from a weak heart. At present defendant was agreeable to pay £2 10s per week, although he was not earning anything. Complainant also gave evidence, after which, owing to defendant not being able to disclose certain private matters, the case was adjourned to October 11, and defendant waa ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of £3 15s per week in the meantime.

Isabella Marshall applied for a separation order, and a maintenance order against her husband, Albert G. J. Marshall. It was alleged that defendant had failed, and intended to fail, to provide complainant with adequate maintenance. The granting of a separation order was agreed upon by defendant at the opening of the case.

Isabella Marshall stated that she resided at and the defendant was her fourth husband. Witness had married defendant in March, 1916, and defendant had never done anything towards maintaining her. Defendant was employed at the Auckland Savings Bank, and w«e on full pay up to December, 1921. She had no idea of 1 the amount he was receiving. Witness was the owner of two farms, but they were so heavily mortgaged that she was not getting anything out of them. Witness got £l5 a month from the Whakamara farm, but this amount was eaten up in working expenses. The other farm was returning her £lB a month, which amount went in a like manner. Defendant had told, her that he had a farm and two houses. Witness had lived with htfr husband in Auckland, and he had ordered her out of the house. Defendant intended leaving New Zealand, and witness did not think he would come back. He had a brother in America. Tn June, 1916, witness came back to Taranaki, when she was ordered out, and had to work to keep herself. By Mr. Spratt: Witness had married defendant through an advertisement in the newspaper. She denied having advertised for a husband, stating that rdie was an Australian lady and was receiving £6OO per annum. Witness said that she had bought a house in Hawera on her credit. <

Mr. Spratt: You ate known as a wealthy woman.

Witness said that she had had a property in Manaia, which she had sold for £lOOO, but she had to pay the previous owner that £lOOO. Witness denied that when she was married to defendant he had told her that lie was in financial difficulties.

Mr. Spratt: Well, Mrs. Marshall, you are going to deny this, too, I suppose? Mrs. Marshall: Yes. Mr. Spratt: But you do not know what I am going to say yet. Witness admitted that she had bought a Nash motor car with money that she had borrowed.

Albert George Joseph Marshall said that he had been out of employment since the end of last year. He had been employed by tho Auckland Savings Bank for eight years. Witness had sold a house in Onehunga. From the proceeds of this sale he- was not getting a penny piece. Witness denied having ever approached the shipping office, ahd stated that he could not have purchased a ticket. Ho was suffering from neuritis, and eould get two doctors’ certificates to prove that. Witness only had £2 in the Auckland Savings Bank, and was getting £22 ISs 4d a month while on leave. His .leave had expired on September 1, 1921. He had £lO worth of shares in theFarmers’ Union Trading Company, £6 worth of which were unpaid for. His Worship granted a separation order, but made no order for maintenance.