MAINTENANCE OF MOTHER.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1921, Page 8

MAINTENANCE OF MOTHER.

SON’S OBLIGATIONS. A QUESTION OF MONEY. “I expect I could pay a boh a week at a pinch,” said Arthur F. Simons, who appeared in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday to show cause why he should not be called lon to contribute to the support of his ’ mother. He was one of a family of nine against whom similar summonses were issued, and a number of the family who appeared before the court recently had made various offers to contribute to her maintenance. For this defendant Mr Croker said that Simons was a married man living at Raetihi, and had four children. His average earnings for the last year were about £4 10s per week. When working he received 19s per day, but there was a good deal of broken time through wet weather. Simons had offered his mother a home at his place in Raetihi four years ago, but this had not been accepted. He was prepared to repeat that offer now, but could make no monetary payment. Mr. Quilliam questioned defendant about a letter he wrote in reply to a request for maintenance made on behalf of Mrs. Simons, senr. He stated: “I did not say I would see my mother in hell. I said I would see her to hell and back before she gets a brownie out of me. That is different.” Counsel: “A distinction without a difference.” Defendant: “If she had been anything like a mother to us we would not see her in want, if she is so.” Pressed as to the reason why he wrote to the solicitors in such a strain, defendant said he wasn’t too pleased at getting the letter, and thought that his mother should have written personally to him and told him how matters were. He had taken his father’s side in. the family dispute. He had heard that his mother had been making £5 a week, and that she had had a pretty good banking account. Counsel: “Do you expect your mother to come and live with you after a letter like that?”- —“Well, the room is there.” His Worship: “If you ask us to believe that I can tell you we don’t.” After further cross-examination witness was asked what financial support he could give, to which he replied: “I suppose I 1 could pay a ‘bob’ a week at a pinch.” As defendant’s solicitor desired to crossexamine the complainant the case was adjourned sine die to enable Mrs. Simons to be called. Another case in which complainant was concerned was a claim for possession of a tenement by William H. Reader. Mrs. Simons had defended this on the grounds that she used tlie house for keeping board-, ers, which was her only means of livelihood, and the case was adjourned. Yesterday counsel for defendant agreed to an order for possession (by December 8) being made, in view of the fact that the family was now helping to maintain Mrs. Simons, and therefore she was not compelled to continue in the boardinghouse.