LADY LANGFORD

Hokitika Guardian, 29 January 1932, Page 5

LADY LANGFORD

WINS HER CASE,

iUnited press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.)

LONDON, January 28

The decision has been given in tbe ease in which Lady Langford summoned her hushiand, Lord] Langford for maintenance. Lady Langford was formerly a waitress in business with relatives.

Counsel for Lord Langford said that the defendant was penniless, and tnat he was unable to secure employment owing to the publicity of the “AVaitress Peeress” writing for the newspapers, and tortile publicity given to the present proceedings. Lord Langford gave evidence. He said that he was living with friends. He stated that he had unsuccessruny tried to get employment from stockbrokers, from an insurance company, from a brewery, a.s a vocalist, and on newspapers. He previously bad worked his passage several times round the world but lie had not earned more than ten pounds sterling per month on his Australian voyage. Counsel for the claimant, Lady Langford, asked how the defendant Lord Langford, could afford -to keep a second wife if he could not keep his first wife.

The .Magistrate ruled that Lord Langford need not answer the question in view of the bigamy charge. In giving judgment the ordered' Corel Langford to pay Lady Langford £2 per week. The Magistrate commented that he was not satisfied with Lord Langford’s contention that he was unable to pay his wife’s maintenance. He would make better use of his money hy paying for his wife’s maintenance than to engage expensive counsel to fight this case 'to the hitter end. The defendant was also ordered to pay fifteen guineas costs.