SENSATIONAL SCANDAL.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 246, 12 January 1889, Page 4

SENSATIONAL SCANDAL.

THE WIEDEMANN-WALPOLE AFFAIR, A REPORT OF THE CASE. THE PLAINTIFF’S REASON FOR WITHDRAWING. Ik the action for breach of promise of marriage and for libel brought by Miss Valerie Wiedemann against Robert Horace Walpole, damages being laid at £lO,OOO, The defendant denied the promise, and denied the publication of the alleged libel, and, in regard to the latter, pleaded privilege. As to ths promise, he also pleaded that, if made itwas made in Turkey, where no action was maintainable. Mies Valerie Wiedemann, the plaintiff, said she was the daughter of a pastor of North Germany. At the time she met defendant she was staying at the Hotel d’Angleterre, giving lessons to the daughters of the proprietor. She met Mr Walpole in September, 1882, at the table d’hote dinner. He conversed with her, and every day he tried to see her. He sometimes came into the room where her pnpile were, and asked her for books from the library, or to play some music to him. He also asked her to come and see the pictures he had bought at Constantinople, which, he said, he would be sending to his apartments in London, where he had a large collection. Sometimes she met him when at lunch. On one occasion he followed her on the terrace, and talked to her about his journeys in Bulgaria, where he had been, he ■aid, for about eight months to study the law. Defendant said he would travel round the world, and asked her if she would go with him. She said she would return to Germany, ■nd could not do that. He said he liked her very much, and that he liked her from the first minute he saw her. He asked her if she would go with him if she weie his wife. She ■aid she would not marry him, as she would goback to Germany. Defendant said he quite intended she should be bis wife, and he would make her so against her will. She was angry about it, and she left the terrace. He followed her, and took her in bis arms, and kissed her, and said, “ There, now you are already my wife.” She was very angry and did not say anything, and went to her room. The proprietor of the hotel came and said he had seen Mr Walpole proposing to her, and Men him embrace her. He further said he supposed witness was engaged to defendant now. She did not say anything to the proprietor, but she did not go down to the table d’hote that evening. The proprietor asked if she wanted to go to the opera with his daughters. She did go. They got home very late. She went to her room. The key of the door was not there. She believed she bolted the door. She bolted it without perceiving that it did not catch. There was no light in her room and the window was open. She had been sitting for some time at the open window in her robe de nuit, when suddenly she saw Mr Walpole at her side. Not knowing how he got in, she was much shocked and went to the bell. She told him he should leave her room instantly unless he wished her to believe he was entirely mad. She tried to ring the bell, but he prevented her. He asked her to believe his word, and she should be his wife and she should go with him to New Zealand. She said that it was a great disgrace that he should come into her room, Bo tried to convince her that he loved her, and ultimately overpowered and seduced her, she being in a fainting condition. Next morning he sent her a letter and some money to buy a ticket for Liverpool. The letter was as follows ; “I will be in the garden at ■lx o clock, if it is not possible to speak to you before. There is a man sleeping before Sour door.” Upon the envelope was stated ue price of the ticket, the name of the agent, and the time at which the boat started. The in question was a consular policeman. The next day she went to the consul to get her passport. She still wanted to go to Germany. She thought it was Sunday, as the Consul was away. She came back to the hotel and saw Walpole’s servant driving away her luggage. The proprietor of the hotel made a communication to her. She went to see a friend, a lady, and on the road met defendant, who said he had been waiting for her. Ha asked her to go to the gardens and she did so He renewed his proposals •sked her to trust him, said he would like to marry her, and said he liked her. He also said ■he was already his wife now. She did not enrefuse, but still she was very angry with him. She said she would only go with him if he would contract a marriage at the consulate. He said he would do all she asked, but it was not possible that day, and

it would do the next morning. Under this Promise she consented to go with him to the Hotel Luxembourg, where he said he had ordered his luggage to be brought. They went together. He dined with her. She told bun he had done very wrong, and he renewed another proposal. He took off his rings—three in number—and asked her to Keep them all. Before she could answer he took bis signet ring and put it on her finger, and said it would be a token of his pledge and promise to her. It had never left her finger since. He stayed a little while and then went back to his hotel. In cross-exam-ination plaintiff admitted somebody having sent her a portrait of the lady whom the defendant married, she poked out the eyes and wrote under it, •• We shill meet one day and you shall bear my curse to the end ofyour existence; this for marrying the man 1 was engaged to marry, and stealing my life’s happiness; and my maledictions will follow you to the end of your life.” This was sert to Mrs Walpole, The plaintiff was asked if her child was ahve, but declined to answer the question She eventually answered that the child was still living, but warmly protested against answeijng some questions the SolicitorGeneral addressed to her with retpect to her condition in November, 1882, saying excitedly, I wul not have it; it is disgraceful, that is not the purpose I am here for, and I will not nave it. It is ridiculous to put such questions, and I will not answer them ” The judge again told plaintiff she must ‘answer. She had in a letter described her condition at that time, and she was now asked whether she was in that condition. The plaintiff; ‘• I will not answer such questions. It is disgracef uh (stamping her foot). No, I would rather go out of Court.” The SolicitorGeneral : Just consider, you have charged in Mir W1I P° le was the father of a child. The witness : I charge him with having rained my life. He is the father of child. The Solicitor-General; Tell me the date in June, 1883, when the child was • -I will not give you the date. His Lordship : You must answer the question. The plaintiff (decidedly): No; I will not. Hu Lordship :You refuse ’ The plaintiff (emphatically) : Yes. His Lordship: You entirely refuse? The plaintiff (still more forcibly) : Entirely. Ultiinately the plaintiff left thewltness’box and consulted with Mr Cock, who afterwardsinformed His Lordship that the plaintiff declined, in spite of his advice, to answer questions relating to this eubj'eet. She would i rather retire from the case. His Lordship ; Then you cannot carry the case further. V . Cock : Not if your Lordship rules that i)> ... questions should be asked. The plain',l. They have nothing to do with the case Lordship (to the jar;,); Then I dirar gentlemen, to find a verdict for SLiSS“