SOCIETY DIVORCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2599, 6 September 1909, Page 3

SOCIETY DIVORCE.

LADY CLARKE’S PETITION. ; : DECREE NISI GRANTED. u ; “ The case in which Lady Clarke sought a dissolution of her marriage with Sir Rupert Clarke, baronet, on the grounds of repeated acts of misconduct, was heard in the Divorce Court, Melbourne, on August -19, when Mr Justice A’Beckett made an order nisi, petitioner to have the custody of the younger child of tli f e marriage. The court was crowded, but many of those present were persoiis having business in other cases, and the male sex very largely preponderated. Lady Clarke, who was accompanied by her father and mother, Mr and Mrs T. F. Cumming, was self-possessed throughout, and gave ■her evidence with quiet dignity, most of her answers to questions being clearly audible. Mr M‘Arthur (instructed by Messrs Gillott and Moir) appeared for the petitioner, Lady Clarke; the respondent, Sir Rupert Clarke, not being representted by counsel. Mr M‘Arthur quoted' the facts as set forth in the petition. The affidavit of the petitioner, which has already been, ■■published in “The Gisbrone Times,” stutcd * •' “I, Amy Mary Clarke, of Mitford, Toorak-road, Toorak, married woman, make oath and say:— “I am of the age of 42 years, and was born at Stony Point Station,_ near Darlington, in the Western district of Victoria. “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 the 22nd! of December, 1886, lawfully married to the respondent at Scots Church, Melbourne, by tho 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 been supported by the respondent. “Prior to marriage the respondent was a bachelor, and 1 was possessed oi independent means. “There is issue of the marriage two living female children, named Phyllis Mary Clarke (now Phyllis Mary Power), ■who’ was bom at Brighton, England, and is now 21 years of qge,; and Aimee Gwendolyn Clarke, born at Repton, Toorak, and who is now 14, 1 years of age.” Other portions of the affidavit were as follows: “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. The respondent made no complaint against me of any kind, and I was always willing to do my 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 his coldness and indifference to me, and his finally ceasing to cohabit with me since the year 1902 are due to his relationship with the said Connie Waugh.” “I am unable to state the nature or the origin of the acquaintance between the respondent and the said Connie Waugh. I verily believe the respondent has, since the celebration of the said marriage, and since the the Bth day of May, 1890, been guilty of repeated acts of misconduct with the said Connie Waugh at various places in and around Melbourne.” Mr M‘Arthur put in a letter from Messrs Whiting and Aitken, Sir Rupert Clarke’s solicitors, setting forth that he did not intend to mak - any defence to the petition, but would be represented in the eve’t; of thine bring any subsequent application for aliinony. Mr M‘Arthur said: —I propose . to call Mrs Sedgwick, who knows the girl Connie Waugh, With whom the petitioner is alleged to have committed -misconduct. Mrs Sedgwick will say that during 1905 and 1906—she has some difficulty in fixing the dates—the respondent and Connie Waugh frequently visited her house at night, the respondent having made the arrangements, and that he paid for' a bedroom there. He said that he wanted a'quiet room to which he could take a lady friend: From time to-time he visited Connie Waugh at this house, and while he was there misconduct was committed. Mr Justice A’Beckett: Over what dates does it extend:? • . Mr M'Arthur: During 1905 and .1906, as far as we can make out. In 1906 a different arrangement appeafs to have been made. In May. 1906, the respondent employed Mr Fenner to endeavor to buy a house for him at iSt. vilda, ■ and a house, ' “Rochester,” : in Acland-street, was bought on May 17, 1906. I shall be able to show that the house was bought for Connie Waugh', and that she lived there, paying no rent for it, shortly after it was bought, until March, 1907. She then’ appears to have gone to England, and your Honor will remember that a statement was' made by petitioner in her affidavit to' the effect that in 1907 she spoke to the respondent, and told him that she had heard from Melbourne that he had been seen about a great deal with this girl at the races, theatres, and cafes, and that she (petitioner) suspected, tit heard, that the girl had actually gone to England with the respondent, although I do not think it is a fact that she went home in the same vessel. In. 1907 the respondent procured, at the office of Thos. Cook and Sons, a tourist ticket for this girl, and paid for it. She stayed away until January, 1908, and again came back, and lived at this house in Acland-street until March 23 of this year. The respondent then provided her with money to take her passago to England. He went to Cook’s, and bought the .circular order. About that time, or a little later, the petitioner came out from England, arriving here in May, 1909. She was accompan-' ied by her daughter, who was married on June 1. It accords with that that in March the respondent sent this woman, away from the State, and providedher with money. • " ‘ "li" “ Mr Justice A’Beckett: _ I gather from the affidavit that while the. petitioner and the respondent were bving together as far as the world observed, as man and wife, they were not. really in that position. I suppose you propose to give some definite statement as ' to' tho difference from the ordinary conditions under which they lived? Mr M‘Arthur : Yes; I certainly propose to call the' petitioner. Teresa Sedgwick, of Chapel-street, Prahran, said:—l have known the respondent (Sir Rupert Clarke) since 1902. 1 also know Connie Waugh. Tho phonograph produced is her likeness. I had a conversation with Sir Rupert Clarke on the . subject of his bringing

someone to my house. He said that he had a lady friend, and I agreed to her being taken to the house. I was then living at 376 Punt-road, South Yarra. He came to the house about a week after that conversation, and brought Miss ■ Waugh with him. I let them have a room. After that they came regularly, and ‘occupied the same bedroom. I* have brought them hot water and tea, and saw that they occupied the same bed. There was a break when Miss Connie Waugh went for a trip to the South Sea Islands. She was away for a month—l do not remember tht date. After she returned they visited my house again twice or three times a week. This continued until May, 1907, or 1906. It may be 1905. It .is 1905. Mr Justice A’Beckett: I don’t think that this is very material. , Witness :' I think it was 1905 or 1.906. Afterwards Miss Connie Waugh occupied tho house “Rochester,” Aclandstreet, St. Kilda. I visited her there up to March this year. A picture postcard was handed to the witness. Mr M'Arthur (to witness): Is that her handwriting? Witness: It is something like it. Mr M'Arthur: There is some Maori word and some German word. Mr Justice A’Beckett: What is the handwriting: to show? Mr M'Arthur: It is to show the agreement between them. Mr Justice A’Beckett:_ I should think that that was quite obvious. George 0. Ross Fenner, commission agent, said: —I knew the respondent, Sir Rupert Clarke. He purchased the house in Acland-street, St. Kilda, for £1,350, and I bought the furniture for him. Teresa Sedgwick, recalled, identified as that of Connie Waugh the handwriting of two letters. Mr M'Arthur: The date is not on the first letter, but the postmark seems to be October, 1908. The letter is as follows: “Dear Heart,—l think I will* go over to Sydney for a few days. Will leave by the next mailboat going round, if convenient. Be at your rooms, 4.30, to-morrow; I will call. Want some money.—Yours, Connie.” Mr M'Arthur: The letter is addressed to Sir Rupert Clarke. There is another letter addressed to Sir Rupert Clarke in March, 1909, as follows: “Dear Rupert, —Don’t forget we dine to-morrow night, Savoy, 7 o’clock. — Yours, Connie.” “P.S. —Don’t go to the old theatre afterwards.—C.E.W.” John Harrison, manager for G. B. Appleton, auctioneer and estate agent, gave evidence as to Sir Rupert Clarke having paid for furniture for the house “Rochester.” Continuing, he said:—l. once saw Miss Connie Waugh at the house. Sometimes she was called “Miss” and sometimes “Mrs.” Connie Waugh. She went away about March, 1907. The furniture was purchased on June 18, 1906, and the caretaker was paid from March 27, 1907, to July 27, 1907. Mr M'Arthur: That was while she was away? Witness: Yes. While Connie Waugh occupied the house no rent was paid by anyone. She lived rent free. When it was not occupied by her it was let furnished to a tenant, Sir Rupert Clarke paying the caretaker. Connie Waugh returned in January, 1908, and remained until March this year. Prior to leaving, Sir Rupert said that we were to hold the money received as rent for Mrs Waugh. Arthur Eustace Blackburn, accountant, in the employ of Thomas Cook and Sons, said: —ln 1907 an order was taken by a clerk from Sir Rupert Clarke for £3OO worth of circular notes in favor of Mrs Connie Waugh. The account was collected by cheque from Sir Rupert Clarke a couple of days later. The same thing happened on March 18 last. Sir Rupert Clarke ordered the notes, and I took the order and the clique. Connie Waugh came in while he was there. Mr M'Arthur: I understand that when she was in England certain money was sent to her by Sir Rupert Clarke’s instructions ? Witness: ’ Yes. On October 8, 1907, CIOO was sent to her by his order. The next date was November 8, when another £IOO was sent. Amy Mary Clarke, the petitioner, who was allowed > to he seated while in the witness-box, said : —I am the wife of Rupert Turner Haveloek Clarke. _I was married to him on December 22, 1886, at Scots Church, Melbourne, by the Rev. John F. Ewing. Mr M'Arthur: It is set out that you are 42 years of age? Mr Justice A’Beckett: I don’t want to know that; that is not essential. -Mr M'Arthur (to witness): After you were married you went for a, trip to India? Witness: Yes. From there we went to England. During that time we were living, together as husband and wife. \Ve" returned from England about 1888, and went ter Waratah, Toorak, my father’s place. We then went, to a station owned by Sir Rupert Clarke, in New; South Wales. I afterwards went to England for about .'a year, taking with me my two daughters, - with my husband’s-consent: I was away about a year. After returning I stayed at Rupertswood, and subsequently went to Japan for a trip with Sir Rupert and his two sisters. / While there we received news of the death of Sir William Clarke, and returned to Melbourne. That was about 1899. In that year' I went to England, taking with me my two daughters, who were to be educated. Sir Rupert did not accompany us. I remained in England for some time, and went to’ India in December, 1901. Sir Rupert joined me, and we went to .England. We lived together as husband and wife. V Mr Justice A’Beckett.- — When Sir Rupert Clarke went to England in 1902, there was a change in your relations with him. You had been living as ordinary married people live when you wore living together before? Where were you jiving when he came to England in 1902? Witness: I had only rooms up to then, and he bought me a house in Park-lane, where I lived from that time. ,• _ To Mr M'Arthur: In 1902 Sir Rupert Clarke was in England for three months. At no time 'during that period did we co-habit. Mr M'Arthur : Why did the relationship cease between you.? Witness: When he arrived in England he was very cold in his manner, and very different from -what he used to'-be: , .On' two occasions I wished him to resume relations with- me, and he would not. He had changed. Did 5 he-make any. complaint of your conduct.?—No. Did he give any explanation of his own conduct?—No. . I believe he left in 1902, and came back to Australia? —Yes. Had you at that time beard anything* about Connie Waugh?—No. Mr Justice A’Beckett (to witness): In 1905 yoiu and Sir Rupert and your daughters were living in Park-lane? Witness: Yes. And there was no resumption of your original relations there?—No. How was the house conducted—had you separate suites of rooms P—We had V ' /< ! ■■ ■ ■ - .■! . * *

separate rooms, and he was very seldom in. . Would ho be under the observation of persons in* the house, and would it bo known to-them that you and he were not living as man and wife?—Yes. And there was no further explanation asked by you or given by him?—No, • What did it mean?—We were so little together.. Ho was nearly always in Australia. How did it come about that this very unusual state of tilings existed?—l asked him twice to come to my room, and he would not give nie any explanation. There was no inquiry nor explanation by you as Ix> how the cessation of relations came about? You merely accepted it without ? —I asked him, and he said he didn’t want to —that’s all. We didn’t get on very well. Do you mean that you quarrelled, or what?—l didn’t know anythin? about it then, hut I supposed that he r? is living, with somebody else. You then suspected him of infidelity ? Witness’s reply was inaudible. Mr M'Arthur: She says, “I didn’t,” your Honor. Mr Justice A’Beckett (to witness): You did not, then? Well, that makes it all the'more extraordinary. ■Mr M'Arthur (to witness): I understand that in 1902, and before that, you were having frequent quarrels? Witness: Yes. Did you ask him for .any explanation?—No; I didn’t ask him. / thought that if lie didn’t want to, 1 didn’t want to press him. Did he. ever make any suggestion that you were‘to blame in any way?—No*.' Mr Justice A’Beckett: There was a visit in 1907. I suppose that the same thing went on then? Mr M'Arthur (to witness): You had a- conversation with him in 1907, that being the first time that you had a suspicion that there was anything wrong. Witness: Yes. I had heard rumors about Sir Rupert and Connie Waugh. He told me that I was spending too much money, and I said, “Surely, if you can buy a house, and keep Connie Waugh, you can afford the money I am spending.” We were both rather angry. He left me soon after that. Mr M'Arthur: About August, 1907, lie came out here with your daughter, Phyllis ? —Yes. Mr Justice A’Beckett (to witness): I understand that specific reference was made to Connie Waugh. What did he say ? You mentioned the name of Connie Waugh to him? —Yes, I did, and lie didn’t deny it. Mr M'Arthur (to witness): Before 3 T ou came out here in May last you caused inquiries to be made?—Yes. You then placed the matter in the hands of your solicitor, Mr Moir? —Yes. You came with your daughter for her wedding? —Yes. We went to Menzies tor three or tour days, and then to Rupertswood. While we were at Menzies Sir Rupert Clarke was living at his fiat in Bank-place. Mr Justice A’Beckett: Well, there is no defence in this case. The misconduct mentioned is proved, and I make an order nisi with costs against the respondent. Mr. M'Arthur : And your Honor will allow custody of the younger child to Lady Clarke? Mr Justice A’Beckett: Yes.

The hearing of the case having come to an end, the majority of those present in Court took their departure, and attention was devoted to the remainder of the divorce list.