BLIND CANON'S SUIT.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 205, 28 August 1909, Page 15

BLIND CANON'S SUIT.

STOR* OF A WIPE'S CONFESSION ANP RETRACTATION. In the Divorce Court, London, last montn, Sir John Blgham heard the petition of the Rev. Canon Edward Lionel Gedge, Rector of Gravesend, who sought the dissolution of his marriage on the ground of the alleged misconduct of his wife, Mrs Beatrice Frances Josephine Gedge, with the co-re-spondent, the Rev. Herbert John Martin, "Vicar of Holy Trinity, Chatham. The charges were denied, the wife on her side pleading condonation and cruelty, which the petitioner denied. Mr Priestley, K.C., opening for the petitioner, said hie client married his wife in December, 1884, and there were several children, the eldest being twenty-three years of age. For many years the petitioner had been blind, and, had had considerable cause to complain of his wife's conduct, in particular her extravagance. On September 13th, 1008, counsel continued, Mrs Gedge made a confession to bet* husband implicating Mr Martin. She asserted that on Mr Martin writing to her that he wished their relations to cease, she wrote him a bitter letter, and also wrote to the Blibop of Rochester telling him the whole story, and denouncing tbe co-respond-ent. The result of this and other communications of a like kind was that Mrs Gedge was prosecuted by Mr Martin for criminal libel, and she was put on her trial on November 17th last before Mr Justice Uiaiej, who, however, postponed tbe matter, as he thought the Bishop should investigate the affair as between these two clergymen. Subsequently the following retractation appeared in, "The Times": — "I, tbe undersigned, Beatrice Frances Josephine Gedge, of The Rectory, Gravesend, do hereby publicly apologise to the Rev. Herbert John. Martin, Vicar of Holy Trinity, Old Brompton, for tbe libellous statements I nude and published concerning him in September last, and I hereby declare that th« charges against him contained In euch statement were false.—Dated, JanuaVy 13th, 1900." After this, continued counsel, Mrs Gedge wrote a letter to her husband in which she explained to him the reason for her retractation. "I have retracted," she wrote, "because I could not bring myself to ruin Mr Martin's wife and children. 1 went to his church od Sunday. There were only 80 people, and there used to be 300, and he depends upon pew rents for his daily bread. Let. the world despise mc, but I will not open my lips in a divorce against Mr Martin." "These two people," explained counsel, "were well on In life, the lady being fifty, and the petitioner forty-eight years of age." Mr Gedge gave evidence in support of his petition. Asked by the judge whether be believed his wife when she made her confession to him, he answered: "Absolutely; I knew she was telling mc the truth.' . The Bishop of Rochester was called, and. In reply to tbe Judge, said he did not believe, from a conversation he had with Mr Martin, that tbe latter had been guilty of impropriety. Mr Martin went Into tbe witness-box and denied tbe allegations regarding him, ami, while cross-examination was In progress, tbe judge interposed with tbe remark that In his opinion the lady's statements about Mr Martin were not to b> relied upon. The judge sold, he thought the co-respond-ent bad perhaps acted foolishly, but there was no evidence of Impropriety. At the time Mrs Gedge made her confessions she was not in a state of health to enable ber to be mistress of herself. She was the victim oi. her own imagination, and did herself injustice and a great injustice to the co-respondent. In the presence of the hueband tbe judge said he wished to say be bad satisfied himaelf there had been no lnfldellfcr. The petition was dismissed, the wife to pay ber own costs, the petitioner to pay tbe costs of the co-respondent, that gentleman being dismissed the suit.