The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-01-05

Y WIUTTTTUTTT"9 y
y clothes Sl2; everyday suits $50: =
y caps SlO: > pair shoes 81: 10 shirt =
y waists S.23; incidcntals $50. Total y
= for two. not including board. N0.25. >
a woman ard a hackdriver FLASHED re-
Earding tho cost OF clothing children be-
fore Judge C. W. Morse Of the district
court yesterday afternoon with the result
that the woman figured on $3.50 20 keep
two boys. and 10 years Old respectively
one year including board, while the hack
df-yer estimated the cost for the same
at sos, not including board. Above are
the divergent estimates.
The woman is Mrs. Emma Arnold Mat
thews and the hackdriver is Ernest w
Taylor. The facts and figures above pre-
scented were adduced as result Of a con-
froverSy between Mrs. Matthews and her
former husband. James G. Arnold re-
Gardtng the amount he should he COM
PEELED 20 pay for the support of his two
Children which are in her care. He has
been paying $50 per month and complains
ihat TINS IS TOO much and that part of il
goes 10 support James Matthews, the wo-
mans second husband.
Expert Witness Called.
The discourse regarding the expense OF
keeping children was learned and long
drawn out. The first expert witness
on this subject called by MIR. Arnold was
g. lFlf0uiN .haCkdrlNer. Ernest w. I1N-
Tor Mr.. TAYLOR has two boys of the same
age as the Arnold children and after duly
qualifying as an expert produced the eX-
penSe account written On tablet. He
explained that he always did the shop
ping and that the only thing he let his
wife buy was socks.
"a pair of overalls will do boy a
year" ne said.
The next expert called by Arnold was
J. II. Vernon. another hackdriver. He
had not figured the matter out TO such
nicely as had Taylor. but he said he
supported family Of five on $50 a month
and that they lived well. He had no eX-
net figures IN regard 20 the cost Of boys
clothing. but seemed TO think that the
Mrs. Matthews Testifies.
The Arnold case was rested after the
Illuminating evidence of the afOremen-
toned experts and Mrs. Emma Arnold
Matthews wac called i'm rebuttal. Mrs
Matthews is tall willowy woman of per-
haps 50 summers and a few winters. She
was attred in purple suit. white waist
n brown tn ine hat which set well on
the edge OF the pOmpadOur which ascend
GO gracefully from her aquiline features.
Her ears were decorated with sapphire
earrings and her brown hair was adorned
bv a huge black bow. When she took her
stand her face showed considerable deter
mination.
She Immediately began a fervent dis
course on the cost OF supporting her two
boys and the above list OF articles pur-
chased for them during the past two
years indicates that they were rather
well clothed. I'm order to demonstrate to
the court that she had taken good care
or them she lined them up in front OF her
aud there the two little fellows stood
looking bashfullv at tho floor while the
learned iurist and the lawyers inspected
their raiment 90 see if il came up to all
the requirements set by the mother. The
boys were dressed neatly and seemed well
cared for
Mothers Ultimatum.
After the demonstration had ended Mrs
Matthews deIvcred himself OF the follow
ing: "Why should they wear cheap
clothes when their father does not wear
them. That's the WHY ] look at it I'm
like most women she never pa;rOnizes a
sale because You can't get good stuff
at one Of them Mr. Taylor. however.
n al already testified that he thought
kAasales" to he great things
-NNAfter all the evidence was in Judge
Morse sized uD the situation as follows:
There has been some ridiculous evil
dence on both sides. The expense aC-
count of Mrs. Matthews is ridiculous on
the face of il and we all know that from
common knowledge. The idea OF paying
Sl.O5 for the winter stockings for those
boys. 7 shall allow her Si2 per month
for board and the attorneys may agree
upon someone to buy the clothing.