AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

Cromwell Argus, Volume XII, Issue 589, 22 February 1881, Page 6

AN AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE.

The Wellington papers contain lengthy reports of the divorce case, Hedley v, Hedley and Anderson. We quote "some passages of the evidence :—Eliza Lathrope, a servant of Anderson,.at the Metropolitan Hotel, Auckland, deposed she had often seen Mrs Hedley and Anderson undressed in a room together. Mrs Hedley told witness Anderson was her brother. Anderson's bed often had the appearance of two persons having slept in it, and though witness could not say Mr 3 Hedley had slept in it, she was certain she had not slept in her own bed. They were often in each other's rooms, and both osed to'lie down on the same bed of an afternoon. The children always called Anderson uncle. Mr Hedley, who was often away from the hotel all night, knew his wife, called Anderson her brother. Every one in the house could sf e they were very fond of each other, and said so. Witness never saw them kiss each other, but they were often out together, and Hedley did not object. Never saw them lying down together while Hedley wa3 there. She had never told Hedley of what she had seen.— Margaret Lathrop, midwife, deposed she had nursed Mrs Hedley in her confinement. Anderson often came into her room, and stayed a long time. Mrs Hedley always called him brother, but he was more affectionate than brothers usually are. Hedley put in the following letter, which he had received from his wife when she was leaving Lyttelton to join Anderson in Auckland :—"Lyttelton, May 17th r ' 1880.—Dear Husband,—When yon get this I shall be on my way to Auckland to join Anderson, who, although he has ruined me, I still love. Bat I cannot leave you, bad as you may think me, without asking your forgiveness for all the suffering and disgrace I have brought upon you. If you knew how miserable lam you would at least pity me; and, believe me or not, Gabe, I was not wilfully guilty at first, but he had through his kindness got me to care for him, and in an unlucky moment took advantage, and my peace of mind went at the same time. Oh, Gabe. forgive me. I know I have deceived you, and do not deserve it, but I cannot live away from him ;' only when I think of all your kindnoss and goodness to me I wish we had never known'him. But it is too late now. T have taken the children because I cannot part from them, and never will if I can help it; and my only hope is that you won't come and take them away from me. Oh, husband, have a little mercy on me. I cannot undo the past, and I cannot but go to him, for he has sent for me, and, besides,'you told me yourself, when I could no longer deny my guilt, that 1 was no longer your wife. Darling—for 1 still care for you a little, although yon may not believe me—do not forget me. Good-bye, dear ; I know I shall never see you again, but will try and be good to the bairns if you will only let me keep them. It is the only atonement I can make now, and you know 1 have always loved them.—l am, your miserable wife, Hannah Hedley.

Mr Travers, who appeared for the petitioner, said the case was a clear one. There was no evidence of cruelty, or that the parties had lived otherwise than nine out of ten families did. There might have been Utile disagreements, but without them married life would not be worth twopence. Some people liked married life to be all honeymooning, but that was an insipid affair. There was ho evidence of collusion. Hedley had allowed Anderson perhaps more freedom than was prudent, little suspecting a man of 50 or '6O ; but unfortunately men of that age were often as subject to the worst passions as younger men. Who shall a man be trustful of if not his own wife? Unfortunately Hedley trusted too far.