APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2045, 23 November 1907, Page 1

APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE.

REMARKS BY THE MAGISTRATE. “DEFENDANT HARASSED BY COMPLAINANT.” MR FINN AND S.M, AT IYAIM ANOE.

Yesterday at tho Magistrates Court Hannah O’Sullivan lodged an application against her husband Patrick O'Sullivan, for the minijiteiranco of their, four youngest children. (Mr F’linn appeared for complainant and Mr (Stock for defendant. Acting on his ‘Worship's suggestion both counsel agreed ito toko the four cases lin, one. Just before Mr Finn opened his case tho Magistrate commented upon tho manner in -which dof on daunt

was being harassed by complainant, and Mr Einn warmly objected to ■any such remarks from the Bench, sta ting that a filer they had been uttered it whs not worth while to go on with the case as it was easy then to see whi.it the verdict would he. In his opinion fit was a much more disgraceful action on the part of defendant leaving his wifo and children destitute.

Tho S.M. thereupon referred to a previous offer made by defendant of a house, milk, firewood, etc., and £6 per month; but Mr Finn disagreed, stating that this was altogether a conditional offer. 'Counsel again expressed lliis disapproval of the remarks mlade and the Magistrate replied that what h 0 had said indicated nothing. He was not in tho least prejudiced, and he did not wish to withdraw (anything ho had said.

Mr Finn said that .all ho and his client wanted was justice, and his Worship . said that lie would give them that to.-the best of Ills ability. The case was then proceeded with and complainant’s counsel proceeded to quote from Section 8 of tho Destitute Persons Act, stating that although there had been previous in-

formations yet this.olio was tho” I first broughtoby Ibis client under the section referred to.

Mr. Stock dissented, saying that tho first information laid was for maintenance of complainant ami her children. ■Proceeding, Mr Finn cited Various cases and authorities on tho subject, and remarked that clearly itlio defendant was liable for the support of lliis children.

His Worship stated that he could not see any parallel between, the cases quoted and tho present one, and lasked Mr Finn if ho thought that under existing circumstances defendant .was really liable. “That is the law of (the country,” replied counsel, .whereupon the Magistrate said that if that was itlie case it was a ridiculous Jluv and tho sooner it was altered the better.

■ Mr Finn retorted that it was mot for that-Count to alter the law, but to administer it, and if the Magistrate stopped him in his arguments he would have to take other .stepis to obtain .the justice which lie was determined to leave for his unfortunate client. Mr. Finn quoted further authorities in support of ihis contention as to defendant’s liability .and called tile complainant. Hannah O'Sullivan stated thatslie was living apart from defendant on account of liis cruelty. With her were the four . children mentioned an the .application. She would not be table to maintain them if it were not for the .assistance of some of her older children and also the help of some, friends. Tho offer of « 'liome jvviiicli -had been (made rto her was acceptC r 7i,h ,1-A)il(l not carry at out unless shoHeased the Ormond property. This she was unablo .to do and did not want to sell it-.

Cross-examined by Mr Stock, witness said that dho had mo deed or order of separation from her husband. Did ..not know that under the circumstances defendant had a ■legal right -to the custody of the children. Did not tell any person that she was starting'milking again on the Ormond property. AYitli reference to the offer made iby defendant witness, in reply to" Mr. Stock, stated that she had never refused to go -to live at the home provided, in fact she never had been asked to do so.

. His Worship here said that what witness said was nonsense, as tlio offer had been made in his presence, and he had no doubt .the complainant ‘ hill refused. Mr Finn pointed out that this was not evidence that his client had •been' asked to go or had refused. This closed the complainant’s case land Mr Finn made an 'application that the cases might be .taken separately; but Mr Stock objected saying that ail agreement was made at (the beginning to take all four cases together, and that could not now be altered.

His AA’orshir) on these grounds was unable to grant the application. Mr Finn mentioned that if was only on account of. his Worship’s remarks on the case that ho brought the application at all. Mr Stock, in addressingtkeCourt for the defence, stated that ft was merely a matter of law, and the de-

lend a lit was -legally entitled, to it-he custody of -tlio children. The. cases cited by Mr Finn were under a proper deed of separation, -which did not exist in this case. Consequently, lie held there was no justification whatever for the present claim. Continuing, Mr -Stock said tlu.it his client was anxious to see his children cared for, and .if the original offer could not he accepted he was

prepared to take the children -and provide a housekeeper to look after them -and also to send them to school.

At the suggestion of -the Magistrate defendant was put in tlio tolox and corroborated t-lio statements made on his -behalf by' Mr iStock. Witness said tha-t. the first offer -was still open, tout if that, -was declined, his present offer was, as counsel stated, one of the children aged 4 to be sent to -the convent as a boarder and the others to day school.

To M. Finn: Original offer was conditional a -ncomplai-uant leasing the Ormond property and -the proceeds toeing handed to witness. Will not maintain children if thev arc away -from him. At present was .hot living -at home, tout was working i.vt Waerenga-o-kuri and liv-ing in a tent. Had called complainant a thief on a previous occasion.

This concluded the case, and Mr. Finn -again made -application to fake the cases separately, which was again refused. His W-orshi-o in -giv-mg his decision, stated -that there as no law

to compel a- wife to return to her husband. The father was bound to maintain his children, and on defendants offer to provide tor them tlio informations would bo dismissed. ‘Mv Stock inti runted that -he should endeavor to obtain for his client flic custody of the children, and Mi Finn stated that tho «a«o wquld be further dealt with by the Supreme Court. _