B.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1642, 24 March 1884, Page 2

B.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-SATURDAY.

(Before H.S. Warded, R.M.)

The adjourned case, Young v Hollis■ter, came on on Saturday at 12 o'clock, re claim for maintenance of Maud Constance Hollister.

George Yourig ' sworn, said • that Samuel Hollister was a brother-in-law of his, and that Hollister's wife died in October, 1879, in Wellington, leaving three children. That he has, since his sister-in-law's death, had living with him-Maud Constance Hollister, now seven years' old, and after Mrs Hollister's death, he and his wife were in Wellington talking to Mr Hollister about their family affairs, He (Mr Young) saying he was not in a position to take one of his children, and Hollister talked about getting a housekeeper. In March, 1880, Miss Miles came from Gisborne on a visit to Young's,' but stayed a week in Wellington, and .brought the child, at Mrs Young's request, for a holliday of six weeks or two months, In June following, Young wrote to Hollister, but received no reply, and in August he again wrote but with the same effect. Hollister was holding a position in the Civil Service, but left that, and went to Brightwatcr in Nelson'. Young wired and wrote.again, and received a reply from Hollister's solicitors, asking that suitable arrangements he made for the return of his child. Since the child has been with Young, he has not heard from the father at all,

Mr Bunny asked that a warrant mightbe served fordefendant to appear, but this was not agreed to. Witness continued: Defendant was now in Wakefield, Nelson, holding a license for an hotel. He never led Hollister to understand that he would keep the child gratis. He had often sent money to defendant when in Wellengton, but had never had any acknowledgement.

Mr Bead then cross-examined Young, Mrs Young, called, said she was wife of George Young, and knew Hollister, being sister to his first wife. Scon after her sister's death she was in Wellington with her husband and overheard a. conversation between her husband and Hollister, that being in the position they were, he (Young) felt that he could not take one of the children, When Miss Miles came up she brought the child by invitation from Mrs Young for, six weeks or two months. She read ' her husband's letters to. Hollister and approved of them. Heard that Hollister had left Wellington but did not know where he was until last year. She knew Hollister before -his marriage. • Cross-examined by Mr Beard, said she remembered hearing that Hollister was seen in Wellington disguised, and that her husband had sent several telegrams which she had seen. After some remarks from Mr Beard, his Worship said he reserved his decision of the amount for past, also for future maintenance should the child continue to live with plaintiff. He had no sympathy with a parent who left a child four years without making any inquiry after it.