James Beattie

Newspapers - Evening Star 21 April 1881 Page 2

Maintenance— John Beattie and Walter Grieve, the grandfathers of Elizabeth (7 years), Jessie (5 years), Isabella (5 years), Mary (18 monthi), and Jane Bealtie (6 months), were oharged on the information of Jenneta Beattie with being of sufficient ability to support the said children, who are destitute and unable to support themselves. Mr M'Keay appeared for the complainant, and Mr Solomon appeared for John Beattie. —Mr M'Keay said that the complainant was married to James Beattie in April of 1868, and she lived with him until May of last year. During that period she had nine ohildren by him. He deserted her in May, and disappeared, noboly knows where, She struggled on up to the present time maintaining herself and children, with the assistance of some friends, as best she could. She now found that it was impossible to earn a living for her ohildren, although four of them had been taken off her hands. One of them was with John Baattie, where he was staying for five years. The husband being absent she was forced to lay an information against the two grandfathers—a thing the Act allowed, they being near relatives. The Interpretation clause, he said, explained what a near relative was—a grandfather was one. In this case Grieve was quite willing to contribute half of whatever sum the Court might think fit to name, but he thought it would be a very great hardship if he had to support then alone. He (Mr M'Keay) considered that it would be a monstrous thing if one grandfather had to pay and the other not. As to the ability of the two—Grieve admitted that he was able and willing to pay, but Beattie, though of ability, was not willing to contribute. Beattie had 500 acres cf land in the Maungatua District, together with a number of cattle and sheep. It was true that there was a bill of sale over the sheep and cattle, but that bill had long since expired. Beattie was, therefore, perfectly able to oontribute, and he could not see under what possible pretext he (Beattie) sought to avoid his liability. An application had been made to have the ohildren oommitted to the Industrial Sohool, but it had been declined. If the sum to be allotted were divided equally between the two grandfathers, Grieve would be satisfied. — From the evidence of John Beattie it appeared that he was hardly solvent. He had debts in connection with the land amounting to L674, and in connection with his sheep and cattle to L2OO —Mr Solomon submitted that no case had been proved. It had been clearly shown that Beattie was not in a position to contribute anything, and although he had already one child he was willing to take another, but he oould not possibly give anything that would help to support the five ohildren. The intention of the Act, he contended, was that a destitute person should be supported by such relations as would naturally support bim or her. — Mr McKeay said that if Beattie would take two of the children the difficulty would be settled.—Mr Solomon said they could not accept the proposal. Beattie was not in a position to do so. His Worship said that a strong enough case had not been made out to show that Beattie was of sufficient ability for him to be made to contribute pecuniarily for more than one ohild, He would adjourn the case for fourteen days to enable some arrangement to be oome to if possible between the parties. He would advise Beattie to take two of the ohildren if possible.

GEDCOM Source

9 MAY 2019 03:36:06 GMT -0500 Geni World Family Tree MyHeritage The Geni World Family Tree is found on <A href="http://www.geni.com" target="_blank">www.Geni.com</a>. Geni is owned and operated by MyHeritage. Collection 40000

GEDCOM Source

https://www.myheritage.com/research/record-40000-376167404/james-be... 3 9 MAY 2019 Added via a Person Discovery Discovery 40000:376167404: