The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-07-10
COURT AGAIN
 GRANTS S35 A
 WEEK TO WIFE
Painter, and Liberal Church Contributor Protests It
 Will Bankrupt Him.
DENIES BUSINESS IS
 WORTH s6,OOO YEARLY
Case Is. Appealed When Judge Offers Choice of
 Jail Term.

Pleading that the financial status of his business does not enable him to pay $35 a week towards the support of his wife, as ordered June 1s. George A. Douglas. a painting contractor of 706 Howard avenue and, according to testimony a liberal contributor to re- ig1ous work, was arraigned before Judge Ceughlin in city court today for the second time to defend non-support charges It was charged and admit ted that he has not paid the amount directed.
 The same finding as before was made, payment of $35 a week for a. year under a bond of $I,0Oe or jail for six months An appeal was taken under bonds of s1.00o. with F. L. Bradbury furnishing the bail This makes two eases pending in upper court with two bonds Of $1;O00 each posted. The prosecution inttmated that the citS court orders will be com piled with or additional prosecutions will be brought S At the first hearing Douglas was represented by Attorney Frederic A Bartlett while today Judge William HI. Comley. Jr., city attorney, was his counsel Prosecuting Attorney Alex ander L. Delaney appeared for the state assisted by former City Court Judge Carl Foster. counsel: for Mrs Douglas.
 The testimony was almost entirely directed towards ascertaining, if pos- stble. the income derived by Doug las from his business. The defense contended that there is much exaxz geration in tlaet general idea Of the income and Judge Con1ley said that the forced payment of $20, or more, a week would endanger bankruptcy
 Mrs. Douglas broke down on the witness stand and wept pittfuIly as
  the business and doing all kind of work to make it a. suceesa even. sla .aald, to attending to fle Furnace at times. She thought it unfair that she should be deprived of any return for this work even a living while Mr. around in an automoble She thought that she should receive fair return,
 Again. she emphasized that Mr.. Douglas had told her that the busi- ness was returning a profit Of from S6, 900 to $7,00o a year and that she had seen the figures on the books. She also said that the business was good this spring. Furthernzore she said that she had seen the books after January of this year and said that they showed about $e,ooo. She did not know as she would be able to find the figures now, as she said that there had been so much figuring. done on the books since then and particularly since the non-support proceedings were originated Judge Conn1ey close ly cross-exaTnined her and got her to admit that she was not sure as to whether she had seen the figures in the ledger, day book or other sac counts. She said that there had never been any fntfnatfen as to poverty un- til the proceedings had been brought.
 It was admitted that Douglas has offered to pay his wife $12 a week, since the court ordered payment of s35; but the amount was refused
 William Leslie, a public accountant. was produced as a witness for the de- fense in an attempt to show that Douglas is not able to pay the $35 per week without seriously affecting his business
 Leslie said an examination of the books had been made with difficulty. His figures indicated that fthere had been falling off of $2,677.04 during 1918 and of $719- from January to July 1 of shis year. He admitted that his examination had been a nasty one, said that the books had been poorly kept and he dou ubted as to whether a. definite balancing could be made.
 Douglas said that he derives no real profit from his real estaze holdings and that expenses for repairs, etc, have been heavy.