PEER AND HIS WIFE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21100, 6 February 1932, Page 2 (Supplement)

PEER AND HIS WIFE.

» \ LADY LANGFORD'S SUMMONS, CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE. LETTERS READ IN COURT. STORY OF " TANGLED LIVES.' Tlie hearing of Lady Langford's summons for maintenance against her husband, Lord Langford, the Auckland-born peer, was proceeded with in the West London Police Court on December 15. Dramatic letters, written by Lord Langford. were read in the course of the hearing. Lady Langford, who was working as a waitress in a London tearoom when her husband succeeded to the peerage, was described as Florence Eileen Rowley, and Lord Langford as Clotworthy Wellington Edward Thomas Rowley. Lord Langford, who was suffering from gastro-enteritis, was not well enough to be present. Mr. M. Turner Samuels, counsel for Lady Langford, said that the parties were married on April 26, 1922, at the Church of the Star of the Sea, Sandymount, Dublin. Lady Langford was then 20. They lived together first of all in Dublin at a flat, and within a few months of that Mr. Rowley, as he then was, was found to be very much in debt. He left Dublin and Lady Langford and went •fo London. In May, 1923, he returned to Dublin. From there Lady Langford saw him off. This was shortly before the birth of their child. Coming Into the Title. Lord Langford was supposed to bo going back to London. From that time right, on to early in 1931, Lady Langford had not seen him, did not hear from him, anci had not got a penny from him. At the beginning of 1931 he came into the titla^'.^ '-'We discovered," added, counsel, "that he had taken proceedings against Lady • Langford in Australia for divorce on the grotmds that she deserted him and refused to live with him." Counsel said that it was found that Lord Langford had contracted a bigamous marriage on June 10, 1930, with a •woman —whose name he mentioned—who apparently had been divorced in 1929. ,The marriage took place at the Presbyterian Church, Elston Wick, Victoria, Australia. Mr. Turner Samuels read a letter dated May 14, 1923, which was addressed to Lady.Langford. and contained the follow"My Own Darling Flcdie, —I just lapped your dear letter this morning. I have to go to see about this post on Wednesday. Pray for me hard, darling. I' do hope I get it. The salary, I understand, is only £4 a week, but the commission is good, and there are men making £ISOO a year out of it, so I do hope I shall be successful. It will help us for a time, I will send something for you. I bid - having ten shillings on a horse tomorrow, and if it turns up trumps I ■will send you something immediately. " You know that I just love you. . . I really love you,- darling mine, and God knows how I long to hold you in my arms. I do so long for your love and kisses." Letter and an Answer. Counsel staled that Lady Langford's fcaby was born in December, 1923, but it died, in March, 1924. In a letter dated April 24, 1924, written in London, Lord Langford said:— " Dear Phyl,—Since we have now been separated for nearly a year . .' . it eeems to me that the time has arrived when we should have some definite idea as to our future. I have two opportunities at the moment of employment, one at home and one abroad. I cannot but feel that if I accept the latter our paths will diverge hopelessly from now onwards. I do not feel inclined to refuse the chance of going abroad unless there is some future at home. ... " I am not at the moment in a position to keep you, but I hope to be able to make good if I have something to work for." >An answer, undated, came from Lady Langford, saying:— " Dear Terry,—l have received your letter, which I must say I was not surprised to receive, as I more or less expected you would have, worn out your welcome in Canada in a few months' time. . . . " You ask me to share a home with you, and say in the last paragraph that you are not in a position to keep me. You must be aware that at the ,time you left I was about to have a baby, and you went'off, a heartless wretch, leaving me to bear the burden." Death of the Baby. The letter said that the baby was born fcn3 buried, and added:— " You speak in a detached way, as if you had no obligation, good, bad, or in- - different, and as if my people were the "worst in the world, although you lived on them for many months. . . . A letter from Lord Langford on May 20 said:— " I would like to ask you to do me the 'justice of believing me. I want to arrive at some conclusion to straighten out our tangled lives. The birth and death of our son is, I can well understand, a very ' sore point for you. Going away and leaving you at that time I really admit an act of inconsideration for you. . . . " I can only plead that I was worried, '" and that I thought it would save you ■•• further trouble which my debts were liable, to bring me, and to get a job to keep you, which I could not do if 1 were in Ireland. "I know that my act was wrong, and I did not realise you would be so hurt. I cannot do more than that, and express my regret and beg of you to forgive me. You knew I was going to London, and you knew why I was going ... I further asked you to communicate the birth of the boy to me, but you did not do this, and I only knew of his birth and death through the newspapers." "Wo married for good or ill, and wo have both been through times that have been devilish. I expect I have deserved ■what I have had, but I have paid for ■what I did wrong. Are you going to insist on my paying always, or will you accept my very honest regrets and help me to win a way back to your respect? I, too, you know, have something to complain about. . . . " If you will accept my word for it I am willing toput my house in order, and I cannot do it unless you are willing to do your share of the straightening process." Lady Langford's Reply. Lady Langford replied" Dear Terry, If you will be quite candid and state ■what are the two appointments you are after I will help you all 1 can. Yon know I have had the suffering while you 'have had the pleasures. I suggest that the honourable way is to contribute to my support." The magistrate (to Mr. Cairns, counsel for Lord Lungford) : You admit the complainant is your client's wife ?—Yes, we admit the marriage. And you admit that ho ha s not supported her ?—Yes. Arid you say she has deserted him T — He wanted her to go to Australia and she refused. When a woman leaves her _ husband and goes home to her people, and fk

has nothing to do with her husband, she has deserted him. Mr. Bingley: The letters do not give me that impression. | Mr. Turner Samuels then read a long affidavit which Lord Langford had put in when he entered the action for divorce. It ran:—"About 1926, I wrote to Lady Langford from Melbourne inviting her to come and join me, but received no reply to my letter. From the time that I left Lady Langford to. go to Canada .1 have never received any communication from my wife excepting as aforesaid. I received a letter from a friend of .mine telling'me that Lady Langford had died. Mr. Turner Samuels: Lord Langford's people knew where Lady Langford was nil l * the time. i- The affidavit continued: —"In the ben lief that she was dead I went through a , form of marriage with —. I came back to England, and then obtained information '• through the newspapers that Lady Lang- ;• ford was alive." Lady Langford then went into the witness-box. She said that she did everything in her power to trace her husband a after ho left her. r Mr. Turner Samuels: It is suggested s that he asked you to go to Canada with 3 him. Lady Langford: He never asked me to 11 go to Canada. The Magistrate: He says that ho inn vited you to go out to Australia and you 0 definitely refused?—He never asked mo to go out to Australia. - Witness added that at the present timo r she had not a single penny. She was s telling the Court how for four years she e earned her own living in a tea shop when she completely broko down and wept • silently. Mr. Cairns put fo Lady Langford a 11 number of letters, including one from s Lord Langford, saying that he was about

to go to a realiy good post, and adding: > "I am not going 10 fight with you. It , takes two to make a row. . . Is it ■ worth while fighting with your hubby who loves you ? I only want to do what ' is right." Later he wrote again saying that she had not answered his letter, and that he again offered her a home. He added: — " To put it plainly, you have deserted me. You know I came here to get a decent appointment and did not desert you. . . Those whom God has joined together let no man put asunder. Please think over that. Sit down and think over our marriage lines and try to see that your duty lies with me. • " I repeat again I love you and want you, but unless you can see your way to como here and help me with your love we shall have to part. I don't want a fine-weather wife, but one who will share 1 with me." The Magistrate: The selection was not open to him at that stage. He had already married this woman. • Mr. Cairns read a reply from Lady Langford, which said : " I married you when I was twenty years of age, and since the day the wedding ring went on my finger, fourteen months ago, I have known nothing but sorrow. I found the man I married was

unable to tell the truth and ran up bills, and I also remember when you married mo saying you owed no 0110 anything, and instead jou owed bills since before I ever knew you. . . . You ran away saying you were going to get a job on May 6, and now it is July 6, and so far you have not got work. . . . " Now dare you say if I had gone with you you could have saved mo working when I hold a letter asking me to go and live with you and you could get me something to do. It is a husband's duty to support a wife. . . . Do not evor attempt to write to me again. I shall return any letters from you unopened. I am not going to live with you, so don't ask me. You are not a fit man to ask any girl to live with you and share the dishonourable life you live." The Magistrato (to Lady Langford) : Do you remember those letters ?—Yes, I do. When the. magistrate asked what had become of the " other wife," counsel for J ja "gford said that he understood that she had left Australia to join Lord Langford in England. The case was adjourned.

A cablegram published in the Herald on January 29 stated that Lord Langford was ordered by the magistrate to contribute £2 a week to Lady Langford's support and to pay 15 guineas costs.