IRENE OSGOOD AND HER HUSBAND.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 167, 15 July 1911, Page 17

IRENE OSGOOD AND HER HUSBAND.

•MOTHEH-IX-LAW'S EVIDENCE. THE JtrrXXE-S SUGGESTION. On Monday, May 29. farther evidence •was given on behalf of Mr. Robert HarboTongh Sfrerard, author. In defence of the salt (reported at some length, last week) brought against him in the Divorce Division, before Mr. Justice Horridge, by his ■wife, Mrs. Irene Sh«rar<J, of Gailsborousn Hull, Northampton, known as a novelist under the name of Irene Osgood, for a judicial separation on the grounds of his alleged cruelty.

Miss McAdam, landlady of Brasmar, Xor •wood, the house where Mr. Sherard stayed in Jane, 1009, after first leaving Guils■borongh. said she never saw respondent the worse for drink.

Mrs. JaTie Kennedy, who was next called, said the respondent was her son, and since •his marriage she had visited Gnilsborougii in August, 10OS: June. 1000: and July. 1910. Oα the occasion of her first visit witness said she did no: consider her son held the position he ought to as master of the house and husband of 'Mrs. Sherard. Mr. Fowler, .the secretary-steward, It seemed to her, too* the place her son ousht to have taken. One day Mr. Fowler came in and sat on the breakfast table, swinging his legs in a manner she did not consider nice, and her son was summoned by bell to attend on Mrs. Shettird as if he were a servant. During her second visit her son was ia the studio with a handkerchief ■wrapped round his head. Mrs. Sherard rushed in "furiously angry" and asked .Mr. Sherard what he meant by this, saying that if he were ill he ouiztrt to go to his wife and not to his mother. Mrs. Sherard raised her hands angrily as if to strike •her or her son, and witness was extremely frightened. Mrs. Sherard then went out of the room, and later returned and acted violently again. On the occasion of the first visit she received a verbal intimation from

die petitioner chat she did not want to see witness again. 'In her jndgmeat trer son •was too kind and too submissive to Mrs. Sherard. She hud never seen her son Che •worse for drink, but only excited after taking a glass of wine.

Colonel Kennedy, retired from the West India Regiment, step-brother of the respondent, also gave evidence to tie effect ■th-at .Mr. Sherard -was temperate and sober at Jamaica and always since tits marriage to petitioner.

Air. Wordsworth Sherard Kennedy, the next witness, said he was also a 'brother of the respondent. He explained that Kennedy was the family name. The respondent's Christian name was Sherard, and he adapted it as a literary He bad never seen respondent drunk. He had an artistic and nervous temperament, and it would be easy to misconstrue his betoavionr. Witness nlso spoke to an occasion when Mrs. SheraTd "spoke to her husband like a dog." Evidence was also given by a solicitor's clerk named JJcCaskie to the effect that he knew Mr. STherard at Cannes, and he ttad never seen him drunk. His Lordship: Even at this stage I think It would be wise to came to some arrangement. lAfter a consultation, the Judge consented to adjourn after Mr. Barnard had given him certain references as to cases he Intended to quote in the coarse of his address for the petitioner. JUDGMENT 'RESEKVED. On Tuesday, 'before the sitting ef the court, Mr. Barnard. K.C., leading counsel for petitioner, and llr. 'B. Campion, leading counsel for respondent, ha-d a consultation with nis lordship In his "private room. ■Mγ. Campion, on his lordship taking his seat ia court, at once proceeded with, his address on bebal'f of the respondent. It was noticed that when Mr. Campion rose Mrs. Sherard was not ia court. Mr. Campion suggested that all that was left after the examination they had had was the evidence of some hot temper, occasional qnarrellinss, and one or two admitted occasions of indulgence in drink. As to the countercharges, Mr. Sherard's attitude -had been consistent throughout. H» was not anxious to press them as counter-charges of cruelty—he was bound to bring them up when the petition was filed or 'be mozzledMγ. Sheraxd, Iα fact, was continually excusing .nis wife on account of 'her nervousness and ill-iiealtn. Yet he was made "the

villain; of the piece," and asked to submit to a decree of separation on £Se grottods of his cruelty. Mr. Barnard, K.C., for the petitHKter, said it was impossible, in any case, for Mr. and Mrs. Sherard to live together again. He submitted tha-t cer-tain letters by the respondent subsequent to 'the presentation, of ■the petition were written for the ipurpose of frigMenlttg Mrs. Sherard from going on with the proceedings, and there ■was one which amounted , to a. threat tha>t if she went on with the action he would ruii her as a novelist by saying he had written her books. Mr. Sherard had made deliberate and false charges aaginst his wife which he could not substantiate. The charges of drunkenness had been overwhelmingly proved. There iwas the evidence of Dr. Walker, Mr. Fowler, the .two guests named Joseph, and the constable Reeson as to the Boxing Night affair. Either there was a conspiracy among these men or the story was true. His Lordship Intimated that he would- reserve judgment.