WHO IS COOK?

NZ Truth, Issue 1143, 27 October 1927, Page 7

WHO IS COOK?

Man Who Took Charge Of Food Ration (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Christchurch Rep.) The food problem was apparently a big one m the Emmett home and when things reached the pass that both husband and wife were making their own purchases and cooking their own food m the same house, it might be imagined that sooner or later something would happen. It did. ACTUALLY, Edwin Arthur Emmett is listed m the census as a carrier. There is no such reference to him as "domestic" or "companion-help" — just pain, every-day carrier. And yet, Nana Lennox Emmett, lawful spouse of Edwin and who asked Magistrate H. P. Lawry the other day to adjust the matrimonial rift, claims that her husband's strong desire was to run the house, to dictate what was bought and keep an eagle eye on the domestic affairs to a point of wifely ; intolerance. "Two pounds was not enough to keep myself, two children and a husband on," she told the court. "Of course, he could afford to give you a reasonable allowance," said Lawyer W. F. Tracey, with a businesslike air. "You had access to his books and can speak from that point?" The witness smiled: "One night ... I found out where he kept them and I saw he had made £25 m three and a-half weeks. . ." (Laughter). She added that he had "always been like that, wanting to keep the house." She said there were times when they had to go without dinner owing to his absurd false economy. "I managed on £2/10/-," she said, "but since he cut it down to £2, I find it impossible. . . "He is a gambler . . .he spends an awful lot on gambling. I saw that m his books, too." She had often to get dinner at her mother's. The defendant, who did not engage counsel, got straight on to his crossexamination. "Why, you and the children consumed a pound of steak, two chops and three eggs one morning Where did I come m?" "No, that's wrong," said complainant. "You had two chops (laughter). You got your share of the meat, always." The defendant, m the, box, gave the court a lengthy resume of his married life, starting off m January, 1922, buying a house, he said, m April, taking m a couple of relations as boarders, finding it not a paying proposition, then firing them out. Unfortunately, he said, one of those so-called boarders at 12/6 a week was his mother-in-law. She objected to her being put out and her influence cut a lot of ice against him after that. OLD ORDER CHANGETH "I was running the house myself and everything was all right so long as the wife's mother was there, but as soon as she went, trouble started." He explained that money began to disappear from his trouser-pockets during slumber and finally he decided to take over the household management himself. Counsel reminded the court that at a previous hearing the magistrate, had remarked that apparently the question was: Who was going to run the Emmett home and how much should be allowed for the purpose? Defendant spoke dolefully of the times he had gone home to find "nothing m the house," which was poor solace for a hungry man. After last October, when he applied for a variation, the parties found themselves m the ridiculous position of each buying their own food and taking it home and cooking it. He had overlooked the fact that the court's allowance only included "her and the children" and she was only cooking for herself and the children. "I agreed to pay her £2/10/-, provided she got me my breakfast and tea," he said. His worship ran an eye over the certainly rather well-dressed and^wellspoken defendant. "I think £2 is too mean altogether," he said. Defendant: "Well, I kept house . . . and I assure you I had more food m the house than ever there was before." "And caused more unpleasantness," interpolated his worship. Tackled as to his financial standing, defendant launched into an account of his inability to meet any further demands. "I am satisfied from your general appearance that your position is all right," said his worship. "Let your wife run the house and give her a decent allowance instead of quibbling like this. . . "I'll give you a chance now by adjourning the case until the 31st."