CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 3796, 5 April 1913, Page 5

CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE.

AGAINST HUSBAND AND SON. Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., yesterday, Hannah O’Sullivan (Mr Burnard) proceeded against her husband, Patrick O’Sullivan (Mr Blair) that an order for her maintenance should bo increased from 10s to 25s a week, on the grounds that her health was failing. Mr Burnard outlined the facts and called Dr Collins, who said that plaintiff was not in a fit state to earn her living as she had in tho past. She could perhaps do lighter work than, washing.

Hannah O’Sullivan said she confirmed the doctor’s evidence as to her health and that it was impossible for her to obtain suitable light work. .She gave evidence regarding some investments from which she was not reaping any benefit,, although her money was safe. From her two daughters she received on an average about 12s a week. She would not think of going back to live with her husband. Steven O’Sullivan said that four years ago ho purchased' .a leasehold property from his mother for £l5O, but had not paid the purchase money and was not likely to be able to, as the property was a poor one. He was quite willing to help his mother as much as he possibly could. His Worship said lie was pleased to bear the witness say this. Witness, continuing, said lie could not raise money on the property. He had a house on the property worth about £ls.

To. Mi' Blair: He thought 5s was sufficient for him to pay towards his mother’s keep. He was unable for the present to pay anything off the purchase money. Mr Blair said that he calculated that if complainant got all she wanted she would have about 38s a week. The husband and the son Emmett paid for the keep and education of the juvenile members of the family—two boys and a girl, who was being educated in Auckland Convent, and they had to pay out about £3 a week between them. In view of the lastmentioned fact- and the fact that complainant had invested in real property, ho submitted that there should be no increase in the orders. Defendant, like complainant, was getting on in years and his health' was failing. Defendant and a son Emmett, who said they had a. 745 acre leasehold at Kanakanaia and made no profit from it, gave evidence in support of counsel’s statement. Mr Blair said that the evidence could bo taken as for a similar application against Emmett O’Sullivan. His Worship said he would dismiss the husband’s application and ! would order Emmett to pay os a week, and Stephen (who was not cited as a defendant and agreed to pay 10s a'week before the case was brought) 10s a week, the order of 10s per week against Stephen being made on account- of his having received the £l5O property from his mother.