SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2569, 2 August 1909, Page 3

SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE

SiP. RUPERT CLARKE SUED.

ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

Papers were recently filed with the protlionotary of the Supreme Court, on behalf of Lady Clarke, of Rupertswood, instituting proceedings for divorce from her husband, Sir Rupert Clarke, Bart. The ground on which divorce is sought is repeated acts of misconduct. The affidavit verifying the petition sets out the following in substance, with slight variations of the legal verbage: “I, Amy Mary Clarke, of Mitford, Toorak-road, Toorak, married woman, make oath and say — x “I am of the age oS 42 years, and was born at Stony Point Station, near Darlington, in the Western district of Victoria. m “That Rupert Havelock Turner Clarke, the respondent, is of the age of 44 years, and was born at Rupertswood, near Sunbury, in the State of Victoria. , “I was, on thei 22nd of December, 1836, lawfully married to the respondent at Scots Church, Melbourne, by the Rev. John F. Ewing, according to the rites of the Presbyterian Church.

“Prior to the marriage I was a spinster, residing with my parents at Stony Point Station, and at Waratah, Toorak, and was ..supported by my parents'. Since my marriage I have beeir supported by the respondent. “Prior to marriage the respondent was a bachelor, and was possessed of independent means. “There is issue of the marriage two living female children, named Phyllis Mary 1 Clarke (now Phyllis Mary Power), who was born at Brighton, England, and is.now 21 years of age; and Aimee Gwendolyn Clarke, born at Repton, Toorak, and who -is now 14 years'of age. . “Immediately after the marriage 1 went with the respondent to India, where we lived for about four months. We then went to England, -and lived there for about four months. We then 1 think about February or March, 1888, returned to Melbourne, where we lived at Waratah for a few months. We then lived at a station property owned by the respondent’s late father, known as Thule, in ltiverina, until May, 1894, when wo came to Melbourne, and stayed there until March, 1895. . , , “About March, 1895, I, with the consent of the respondent, went on a visit to England, taking with mo both the children, and then returned to Melbourne with the children, and the respondent and I lived at Rupert,sv»-ooci for some months. We then, left on o, short trip to Japan, and whilst there we received information of the death of the father of the respondent, whereupon we returned to Melbourne and lived at Rupertswcod until about the year 1599, when, with the consent and approval of the respondent, I took the two children to London, in order to have the elder one (and, when old enough, the younger one) educated, the respondent remaining at'Rupertswood. “I remained in England to November, 1901, when I. went, with my sister, to India, and on our way back to England the respondent joined us in Switzerland, in or about February or March, 1902, and we all returned to London together, where the respondent and I lived as man and wife. In or about 1902 the respondent returned to Victoria, and, with*his consent and approval, I remained in London with our two children/ During the visit of the respondent to London lie bought a liouse for me in my name in Park-lane, which has ever since been the principal place of residence of myself and our two children when in England.

“'There has been no. cohabitation between us since the visit of the respondent to London in 1902. Prior to his leaving England for Victoria, I observed that his manner was frequently cold and indifferent towards me. Tl.-e respondent made no complaint against me of any kind, and I was always willing to do"in.y duty to him. On the occasions hereinafter mentioned, subsequent to his 1902 visit, when we were living in the same house together, respondent did not make any advance to me. In view of the fact, which I am now informed can be proved, namely, that the respondent has been carrying on with one Connie Waugh since the year 1902, I believe that liis coldness and indifference to me and his finally ceasing to cohabit with me since the year 1902 are duo to his relationship with the said Connie Waugh. “In or about September, 1904, I came out to Victoria to be present at the marriage of my sister, leaving our two children in London. I remained in Victoria for about six weeks, staying during practically the whole of that time at Rupertswood with the respondent.

“In or about October or November, 1904, with the approval of the respondent, I returned to London, and remained there until April, 1909. 1 gCame out to the said State, as hereinafter mentioned.

“In, I think, the year 1905, respondent came to London, and when there lived with me and our two daughters, principally at 30 Park-lane. During, this visit" the respondent bought for the use of myself and our two daughters a cottage in the country at Farnham' Common, Bucks, which cottage has ever since been used by me as a country residence for myself and two daughters when in England, 30 Park-lane being used as our town residence. The respondent remained in England for about three months on this occasion, and returned to Victoria in or about the month of August, 1905. With the consent and approval of the respondent, I remained in England with- our two daughters. “In the year 1907- the respondent again came to England, and stayed for about three months. During most of this time he lived iat 30 Park-lane with me and our daughters. About the time of this visit—l believe about the month of May or June, 1907 —I heard rumours to the effect that the respondent had been going about a great deal with a woman whose name had been given to me as Connie Waugh; that he was seen with her ,at races, theatres, and cafes in Melbourne; and that he had bought a house foil- her in St. Hilda; that she was then irf London, and that the respondent had been seen, with her in London. Just about this time the respondent complained to mo that I was spending too much money, and I replied, telling him what I had heard, and I said to him angrily that if he could afford, to buy a house ior this woman lie could surely afford al] the money I was spending; and I told him I would be compelled to take divorce proceedings against him. He replied 'angrily: “Very well; do so/ During the visit of the respondent to London, though nve were both living at 30 Park-lane, I saw very little of him, and we did not go about together; and even before the conversation above set out we were not on friendly terms. It. had, however, been arranged that the respondent should take our elder daughter, Phyllis (of whom he was very proud), out to Victoria for >a three months’ trip, and in pursuance of such arrangement, the respondent,, in August, 1907, went

out to Victoria, taking our daughter with him. I romained in England with our younger daughter; “The visit of our daughter Phyllis to Victoria extended much beyond the three months, and she did not return to England until about January, 1909. During her visit she became engaged to he manned. “The marriage was arranged to take place at Rupertswood on June 1,1909. In April, 1909, my daughter and I left London for Melbourne, where we arrived on May 16. After our arrival in Melbourne, my daughter and 1 stayed at Menzies’ Hotel for a few days, and then we went to Rupertswood until June 1, when my daughter was married. The respondent did not stay either at Menzies’ or Rupertswood in the said period, except for one week-end. On the afternoon iof > June' 1, after our daughter’s marriage, he left Victoria on a business 1 trip to New Guinea. -Since June 1 I have stayed at Rupertswood for about a fortnight, e " i subsequently with friends and relations m Victoria., “I am unable to state ti e natu -e o’ the origin of the acquaintance between the respondent and the said Ccmno Waugh. I verily believe the respondent has, since the celebration of the said marriage, and since the.Bth day of May, 1890, been < guilty of repeated acts of misconduct with the sa d Connie Waugh at various places in arid around Melbourne.

The affidavit goes on to state that though the petitioner suspected improprieties, as far back as May or June, 907, when she heard rumours, she hud no proof until her arrival in Melbourne in May this year, and she instituted proceedings as soon as she was in a position to do so. It concludes by denying in the terms of the Act all collusion with, the respondent. Tlie case is* listed for the August sittings of the Divorce Court.