THE GRANTLEY DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 88, 15 April 1899, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE GRANTLEY DIVORCE.

'MINE. OWN FAMILIAR FRIEND.'

MRS LANGTRY'S BROTHER'S MATRIMONIAL TROUBLES.

Mr Clement Martin Le Breton, Mrs Langtry's brother, and a well-known London barrister, was the petitioner in a peculiarly disgraceful divorce case on Saturday last. He desire.d to be freed from his matrimonial obligations' on the usual grounds, and named as co-respondent the lit. Hon. John Eichard Brinsley Norton, better known in the social world as Lord Grantley, whose wife died but 'two years ago. Mr and Mrs Le Breton, who were married some, twenty-two years back, seemed to have lived happily enough together until a year ago. Lord Grantley was the husband's most intimate friend, a 'pal' of some ten years' standing, and Mr Le Breton never had any cause for suspecting his wife and his chum of any fondness for each other; In July last year his lordship 'took, some shooting in;.. Inverness, and invited -Mm. Lfc-Bxeton- and -her daughter to join him, the being chained to town by important legal business until the Long* Vacation. As Lord Grantley was 3 widower Mr Le Breton, jealous of pis wife's good name, objepted to thf proposed visit. Mrs Le Breton pouted, and urged:that the presence of their daughter would be sufficient protection against scandal. But her husband knew the world rather better than that, and flatly refused to permit her to go. Later Lord Grantley wrote Mr Le Breton stating that as his sister and the governess oi, his two children would be in the house there could be no danger of tittle tattle. Even then Mr Le Breton was loath to let his wife go, but the lady persisted, and finally the husband gave a reluctant consent. When the Long Vacation arrived Mr Le Breton's mother, who lived in Jersey, was seriously ill, and her son was compelled to go thither. On his return to England he became aware of the fact that neither Lord Grantley's sister nor. the governess had been present at the Inverness house at any time during his wife's stay. In consequence of this and certain other information Mr Le Breton wrote to his wife stating that as he.was convinced that she had misconducted herself with his lordship he could not receive her back to his house. To this Mrs Le Breton replied at once, denying with every show of wifely indignation her husband's charge, and informing him that she would return to London within a couple of days, and would stay at'the St. Paneras Hotel. She did return to. town, but in Lord Grantley's company. The precious pair ,however, preferred to stay at the First Avenue Hotel instead of the St. Pancras caravanserie. Letter they removed to Victoria, and thence to the Cecil, their movements and conduct being all the while noted by a'private detective. His discoveries proved beyond the correctness of Mr Le B,tetP^s conclusions, and at the trial the counsel for the respondent and co-respondent were unable to either put their clients m the box or to resist the charge of adultery. So Mr Le Breton obtained a decree nisi, with costs and the cus* tody of his daughter. He did not ask for damages against his- quondam friend.