MAINTENANCE OF WIFE.
LORD LANGFORD CHARGED. Received January 29, 8.5 a.m. LONDON, Jan. 28. . In the case in which Lady Langford summoned Lord Langford for maintenance, Mr J. D. Cassels, K.C., for Loru Langford, said that the defendant was penniless and unable to secure employment because of the publicity of the "waitress peeress” writing for the newspapers and the publicity of the present proceedings. Lord Langford gave evidence that he was living with: friends and had tried unsuccessfully to get employment from a stockbroker, an insurance company, and a brewery; also as a vocalist and' in newspaper offices. He had previously worked his passage several times rpund -the world, but had not earned more than £lO a month on . his . Australian voyage. Mr M. Tiirner-Samuels, for the claimant, asked how the defendant could afford to keep a second wife if he could not keep a first? The* Magistrate ruled that Lord Langford need not answer the question in view of the bigamy charge pending. Lord Langford was ordered to pay Iris -wife £2 a week. ’
The Magistrate commented that he was not satisfied with Lord Langford’s contention that he was unable to pay for his wife’s maintenance. It would be better to use the money to pay for his wife’s keep than to engage an expensive counsel, to fight the case to the bitter,end. The defendant was ordered to pay £ls 15s costs. ■ '• The succession of a New Zealander, Mr. C. W. Rowley, to the ancient Irish Barony of Langford, was announced early last year. He was born in East Tamakj in 1885, and was educated at Wanganui and Wellington Colleges. He lived in this country until hia departure with the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. Shortly after the war Mr Rowley went to Canada, whero he gave a serios af singing recitals, and then wandered across the world. The presont proceedings began in December. Lady Langford and her husband left Dublin in 1922 for London. Heavily in debt, he returned in 1923. He then went back to London, after whioh he wont to. Australia and Canada, representing himself as a single man. She instituted a divorce action on the ground of dosortion. For Lord Langford it was contended that his wife refused to accompany him to Australia, which was tantamount to desertion. “In 1923,” said counsel, “she said, ‘I am damned if I will live with you any more.’” Lord Langford abandoned divorce proceedings owing to lack of money. He remarnod, ana returned to England, whore he learned that his wife was alive. Lady Langford, giving evidence, said Lord Langford defrayed the cost of the honeymoon with her rings. She had written the story of her life for the Daily Express. Coming into a title mode her ill, compelling her resignation of her tea-shop position. She was penniless.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MS19320129.2.86
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 50, 29 January 1932, Page 7
Word count
Tapeke kupu
468MAINTENANCE OF WIFE. Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 50, 29 January 1932, Page 7
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Manawatu Standard. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.