SCOT GIVES IDEA OF COST OF LIVING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18062, 24 January 1927, Page 7

SCOT GIVES IDEA OF COST OF LIVING.

“ WHAT IS PRICE OF PORRIDGE?” HE ASKS. The story of an unhappy marriage , contracted in Glasgow five years ago was told in the Magistrate's Court this morning before Mr 11. A. Young. S.M., when Helen Macdonald (Mr M’Carthv) proceeded against her husband. Robert Wark Macdonald (Mr Livingstone) for separation, maintenance and guardianship orders on the grounds of failure to maintain. Complainant said that she married defendant in Glasgow in 1922. There were three children of the marriage. They arrived in New Zealand in March, 1925. Her mother came out later, and for about a year they lived with her. Her husband had acted strangely; refusing at times to speak to her. He went away to Dunedin, but since he returned he had not lived with her. Without putting forward any reason he told her that they could not go on living together. The only thing that witness objected to before her husband left was liis going to dances about twice a week. To Mr Livingstone, witness said that her husband gave her all his wages except 5s every week, until July of last year. They lived happily until June last. He had left her once when he was drunk. He returned but there was another row later, but she did not blacken his eye. Iler temper was no different from other people's. She lost it when he gave her provocation. She did not use bad language. Mr M’Carthy: Did your husband desert you in Glasgow?—Yes, he went to Canada as a ship's cook and stayed away for five and a half months. While he was away my mother and father had to keep me. Mr Livingstone; Did you know he had a poisoned hand in Canada?—He told me that, but I don’t know it for a fact. Defendant said that he lived at Prebbleton first, but differences, leading to a separation arose. lie was called “all the names under the sun” by his wife. Since his wife’s people came to New Zealand there had been a marked difference, but defendant did not complain about them, but because of the insults and obscene language used by his wife. At Spreydon there was another row “and her mother came ben; as soon as her mother came ben mv wife struck out and gave me a black eye.” Witness said that he was called all the names his wife could lay her tongue to, then her mother “came ben” and did likewise and her father and brother also "came ben.” Witness had paid all his money except 5s a week. He was now paying 30s a week for board and lodging and had no intention of leaving his wife and children unprovided for. He now had 10s a week left to keep himself. To Mr M’Carthy, defendant denied that he had left his wife for petty reasons. lie left because of his wife’s bad temper and bad language. You do not use bad language?—No, Quite a decent young fellow?—Yes, as decent as is going. And your wife is not fit to live w r ith ? —She was once or I would not have married her. Counsel went on to ask how four people could be kept on £2 a week. “They could live on 5s a day,” replied defendant. “What?” asked Mr M’Carthy. “Four people! ” “Well, how much does porridge cost?” asked the Scottish witness, and there was laughter all round. The Magistrate said that he did not think there was any reason why the defendant did not live with his wife and family. lie required discipline and would get it in his home. He should pay more than he had been paying. The Court thought that defendant should pay £2 12s 6d a week. Tn the meantime the wife would have the guardianship of the children and no separation would be granted. The man should see his wife and try to make some arrangement about living together. Defendant would have to pay £2 2s solicitor's fee.