LADY LANGFORD WINS.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20496, 15 March 1932, Page 6

LADY LANGFORD WINS.

A MAINTENANCE ORDER. MARRIED ON STRENGTH OF LEGACY. ■ . . (TBOM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) LONDON, February 2. Lady Langford has obtained judgment* in her claim for maintenance against her husband, Lord Langford. Mr Bingley, the West London Magistrate, ordered Lord Langford to contribute £2 a week to his wife. He was also ordered to pay 15 guineas costs. In,the summons, Lady" Langford was described as Florence Eileen Rowley,St. Helen s Gardens, North' Kensington. and Lord Langford as Clothworthy Willington Edward Thomas Rowley, Bury Court, Jermyn street, W. Mr Turner-Samuels, representing Lady Langford, said that before Mr Bingley delivered judgment lie wished to make application for permission to call another witness. He added: A gentleman has come forward who says that a few weeks ago he was at the Albert, Hall, and, having three guinea tickets that he did not want, was discussing at the box office the question of what ho should do with them. A gentleman came- up with two ladies, lhat gentleman turned out to be Lord Langford. This witness, who is a voluntary witness, wants to tell you that Lord Langford was very well dressed, and that the ladies were alsj very well dressed. Mr Bingley: I do not think "I need trouble you to call that witness. Nb Word of Sympathy. Giving judgment, ,Mr Bingley said: luey married on the strength of a legacy , and came to London to spend +u lr , one . ymoofl > but unfortunately on that honeymoon the husband was in such circumstances that he had to borrow his wife's rings and pawn them. It was not, a very happy beginning, perhaps. They went back to Dublin and took a_ flat, but the husband' had no occupation. He was in low water and debts accumulated to a very large extent. Mr Bingley then dealt with the voluminous correspondence from Lord Langford, and said: ''He' is always going to get'jobs, and always going to send his wife money, but apparently the jobs d 6 not materialise, and he does not send his wife money as far as I can make out. This material, Jimg lias to bo considered,!' said Mr Bing"When he went off to Canada ne knew that she was expecting a baby, tie never sent one word of sympathy, nope, encouragement, or, anything else, and he admits that lie read in the P a P®^ s of the birth of the child. . ■ I* the wife's advisers had considered it advisable to take out a summons for desertion I should not have Had tne tuintest hesitation in -saying that tins man had deserted his wife, nut for some reason, best known to themselves, thev took out a different form of summons." On th© question whether Lord Langlord should maintain his wife, Mr DingJey said: "His line is *1 cannot and I never could. T have been a rolling stone. I have never been a hie to pay my debts, and 1 never could-all these years, afford to pay her th,e money.' He then told me that he was here in a borrowed suit of clothes; that mav be. Tt struck me as rather theatrical Working men., when thev appear before me, do not borrow "other

clothes to come, and on, they are not repteßßwMlßy M Mr Cairns: - The I seized for unpaid rent. iJifflrajSß Mr Bingley—l have that yet. It doest evidence. If I am ro ibflUta|||NßjH says he has been offered gowgMlpM at home alid abroad, and "wgMHmMI lations.were willing cially. He was eminent firm of high-class counsel,, who'here for nothing, and friends have supplied money to pay their, satisfied that this man" port his wife, nor am I bUMHHTm he cannot do it now.' saying, "Would it not this money 4q support_ fighting her to the. promised her mono; nothing has ever come his letters nor his evideacgJHß|H me any more than they ■ an^SHfljH A few minutes after -MrdijjfliflH given his' decision, smilingly left the Court interview with her leg»H-f|B||M|M tives. During the _ Lord "Langford did