AN ACTRESS' DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 199, 20 August 1904, Page 13

AN ACTRESS' DIVORCE.

MISB MAUD CHETWYND GETS BELIEF. The theatrical wona was mucb Inter-- "t----ed in a divorce action which came lie: ? Mr Justice a'Reekett, at the Dlv • c Court, Melbourne, a few days a which Maud Edith Singleton, bettor ki; n to the public under her .professional ii.. ■>'. Miss Maud Chetwynd, a well-known ..;.- eratic artist, who has appeared with Mr Williamson's ■ company throughout the colonies, was petitioner. The suit was undefended. The petitioner, who resides at Rlversdaje-ro:ul, Glenferrle, sought a divorce from Charles Hu«h d'Arcy Singleton, formerly of Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, and now "of parts beyond the seas," on the grounds of desertion since October 12, 1896, the day of marriage. The parties were married on October 12, 1896, at Fitzroy, by the Rev. Henry H.athershaw, minister of the Primitive Methodist Church. At the time of marriage petitioner was 18 years of age, and respondent was 21 years. Petitioner Is a native of Footscray, and respondent a native of Melbourne. The affidavit showed that prior to marriage petitioner was supported by her parents. Subsequent to marriage, for some time, she was supported by her paretics. and about three years ag-o she became able to support herself, as she obtained an engagement with Mr J. C. Williamson. theatrical manager. Since that time she had continued In his employment, and was now able to maintain herself. Respondent was a son of John Wesley Singleton, who, at the time of the marriage, was a representative and dispenser of the Collingwood Free Dispensary. The parents of both parties at that time were intimate friends aud dally visited one another. Respondent also called dally at her parents' residence, ln Hambleton-street, SoutU Melbourne. Subsequently he proposed, and was accepted by petitioner, with the consent of her parents, as her future husband. They went out for walks together, and on one occasion, under a promise of marriage, respondent Induced petitioner to comply with his wishes, and then seduced her. On another occasion he repeated it. Witness became in a certain condition. and on Informing respondent he treated It as a Joke, and not as a serious affair. Petitioner's mother had several Interviews with respondent's parents, with a view to compelling respondent to marry petitioner, to save her from disgrace. Eventually It waa agreed between petitioner's mother and respondent's parents that a marriage should be performed, but that Immediately afterwards the parties should part, and not live together as man and wife. Petitioner's mother lnfwamd petitioner „ the nature of the ttgrccia^i. TO AVOID DISGRACE. Petitioner then stated in her affidavit: — "As I was then ( stfer the entire control of my parents, a«S did not understand the meaning of the agreement, I consent. Ed to the proposed IS-irriage, in order to avoid my disgrace. Hespond-ent's parents placed the matter iwiore i*eir solicitors, Messrs Strongman and Crouch, who prepared a document, which I signed whereby, as I believe, I agreed not to liv\ with my Intended husba _, and released him from supporting mc tratll he was able or willing to do so. My marriage did take place, but at the time I was In a state of great excitement, and was not advised what 1 was doing, and I acted completely under my mother's control, my desire being to avoid disgrace. After my marriage We respondent left mc and wen.: away with his parents, and I left with mine." Subsequently petitioner consulted her solicitors, and on October 8, 1897, a letter was sent to respondent pointing out the unhappy life the wife was leading, and asking him to provide the necessary means to support her, etc. No reply was received. As petitioner believed that the document signed by her was not binding on her, aa it extinguished her marital rights, and aa she had received no independent advice before signing it, and was not aware of its legal effects, petitioner Instituted proceedings in the North Melbourne Court against respondent for leaving her without means of support, and on November 8, 1897, an order was made by the Justices on plaintiff to pay 7/6 per week maintenance. Respondent paid 7/8 into Court, and appealed t* the Court of General Sessions. In becember, 1897, Judge Hamilton gnashed the order, on the ground that the document waa binding. A short time after the marriage a male child was born; the enna Clean how afterwards. WENT ON THE STAGE. Petitioner's affidavit then proceeded;— ••Home months after my marriage I obtained employment as an assistant nnder a leading dancing master in Melbourne, receiving a very small remuneration. Having made great progress ln dancing I applied to and waa engaged by Mr J. C. Williamson aa a member of his company, at first recelv. Ing a small salary, but eventually Mr Williamson gave mc a permanent engagement, and for the last 12 months X have been la receipt of a salary of £7 per week, out of which I have t* pay my assistant maid; and I am now, and for some time past have been, almost the only means sf sapport of my parents—my father is over 84 years of age—and their family, including au invalid son. Since my marriage cohabitation has never taken place between as, nor has respondent contributed or paid anything towards my maintenance and support. Some time ago the respondent disappeared from Melbourne, and It was believed that he had left VlctCoria with his mother. Petitioner was not aware where he had gone. Respondent's father was now resident at East Melbourne, and petitioner believed he was ln constant communication with his wife and son. Petitioner desired an order made dispensing with personal service. Petitioner's counsel explained that from the day the maintenance order was quashed petitioner had not seen the respondent. THE PETITION SUCCEEDS. Maud Edith Singleton, petitioner, gave evidence ln support of the affidavit. Questioned by His Honor as to how It was she had not sought a divorce before, she replied: "I never had the money." His Honor thought the only ground on which any opposition could have been offered by respondent was the agreement that the parties were to live separately. No such agreement was produced, however. He thought that at some time or other there must have been an agreement to that effect, but the wife was uot of age at the time, and such an agreement would be inoperative on the ground of public policy when the wife showed that it waß her Intention to Insist on her rights as a wife. That petitioner had done so was shown b; i her proceedings for maintenance. _^ He would make an ordar slat __«#£■' / ___i