SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 204, 27 August 1909, Page 6

SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE.

•■ SIR RUPERT CLARKE THE RESPONDENT. DECREE NISI GRANTED. (By Mail.) MELBOURNE, August 19. The hearing of the action in wbich Lady Clarke sued for divorce from Sir Rupert Clarke, on the ground of misconduct with Connie Waugh, was entered upon, before Mr. Justice a'Beekett to-day. The court was crowded, many women being- present. The action was undefended, and Mr. MeArthur appeared for the petitioner. Theresa Sedgwick said she hod known Sir Rupert Clarke and Connie Waugh for some years. Clarke came to her in 1903, and asked her whether she had a room for a lady who wanted to stay at a quiet house. He went to the house with Connie Waugh. After that they went regularly, about twice a week. Then Connie Waugh went away for about a month. When she came back she and Clarke occupied the room again. Afterwards Waugh went to St. Kilda to live, and witness had visited her frequently until March of this year. Mr. MeArthur asked witness to identify some handwriting. Mr. Justice a'Beekett: What is that to show? Mr. MeArthur: The relations between Clarke and Waugh.. Justice a'Beekett: It is obvious, I think. Mr. MeArthur read lettei-3, the writing in which was identified by witness as Waugh's. One written in 1908, and addressed to Clarke, read: — "Dear Heart, —1 think I'll go over to Sydney for a few days. I will leave by the next mail boat. If convenient at your rooms at 4.30 to-morrow. I -will rail. I want some money.—Yours, Connie." Another, written early this year, read: " Dear Rupert.—Don't forget we dine at the Savoy to-morrow evening, seven o'clock.—Yours, Connie. P.S.—Don't go to the old theatre afterwards." The evidence called showed that Clarke had purchased furniture for the house at St. Kilda, and that he had given Connie Waugh different sums of money in circular notes. Amy Mary Clarke, wife of Sir Rupert, said she was married in December, 1886, in Melbourne. After she was married, she went to India and thence to England. Her husband was with her. She returned about 1887, and after living in Melbourne for some time she went to Sir W. Clarke's station in New South Wales. Later she went again to England, but Sir Rupert staved in Australia. After returning, witness, Sir Rupert, and his two sisters went to Japan, but while there they received news of the death of Sir W. Clarke, and they came back. In 1902 Clarke joined her in Switzerland. They then went to England, where relationship ceased. Clarke was very cold and distant in his manner to what he used to be. They had frequent quarrels. In the same year Clarke came back to Australia. She had not nt that time heard anything about Connie Waugh. To Justice a'Beekett: When they lived in Park-lane. London, she and Sir Rupert had different rooms. An}- member of the household would know that they were living apart. Clarke was alwnys out, and would never go out with her. Justice a'Beekett said that some intelligible explanation would have to be given as to how the unusual mode of living came about. The witness could evidently give none. Lady Clarke: T suppose—although I did not know—that he was living with bomobody else. To Mr MeArthur: He never blamed mc in any way. It was in 1907 that she heard rumours about Sir Rupert nnd Connie Waugh. Sir Rupert said she was spending too much money, and witness replied. "If you can buy a house and keep , Connie Waugh, you can afford to let mc have mone}-." They quarrelled, and shr ' told Sir Rupert she would be compelled to take divorce proceedings. He nnswer- [ pd, "You'd better do it," or words to , that effect. , His Honor said there was no defence in . the case. Ho found the allegations of adultery proved, and granted a decree nisi, with costs against defendant. An application for the custody of the youngest child to petitioner was granted.