and disappeared, after a quarrel over his wife's extravagance. He
had been earning $50 a week in a shop where he had worked for
eighteen years and he would not endure having his wages garnisheed
for debt.

An experienced case worker to whom furious Mrs. Morgan made her
complaint, decided, after studying Mr. Morgan's record, that he
ought not to be prosecuted, and refused to be party to it. As he was
a man of domestic habits, search was made in a nearby city where he
had relatives. He was easily traced. Mr. Morgan was both proud and
reticent, so the case worker made no attempt to approach him, but
told the woman she must devise some way to get him back, preferably
to write him and say she was sorry. This she refused to do and on
her own responsibility adopted the clumsy device of wiring him that
a favorite child was sick. This brought him "on the run," and, being
back, he stayed. _The case worker has never seen Mr. M._, nor has
his wife been encouraged to come any more to the office, although
reports have been received from time to time through the son and
daughter that things at home continue to go well.

FOOTNOTES:

[33] See p. 179 regarding equity powers of the courts.

[34] Massachusetts social workers succeeded in 1917 in securing the
passage of a law which permits the ordinary non-support law to be
invoked in case of the man's failure to pay the amount ordered after a
legal separation.

[35] See p. 13 sq.