WIFE'S HOBBIES

Evening Star, Issue 18999, 22 July 1925, Page 2

WIFE'S HOBBIES

BALLOONS AND OPERATIC ENTERPRISES. SIR T. BEECHAM’S STORY. LONDON, Julv 7. After hearing statements on behalf of Lady Beecliam and Sir Thomas Bcecham, the operatic impresario, in connection with Lady Beecham’s application for an injunction to restrain her husband from alleging that she had pledged his credit without authority, Mr Justice Eve said he could sec no use in grunting an injunction to restrain Sir Thomas from advertising that he would not be responsible for his wife’s debts. Lady Boecbam is being sued by tradespeople from whom site bought furniture for a Grosvenor square mansion, and Sir Thomas advertised that he was not responsible.

Lady Beechnut's counsel said Sir Thomas did not live with his wife. When he was in financial difficulties hia wife assisted him, in consideration of which promises were made to provide her with a .settlement when her husband’s finances were assured. In 1925 Sir Thomas was in receipt of a considerable income from capital which hia oldest son would eventually inherit. It was arranged that the wife and sons should emerge from retirement and live in an establishment more in accordance with the eldest son’s prospects.

Sir Thomas gave her written authority to incur expenses in furnishing such an establishment. A house was taken in Grosvenor square, after which trouble arose. It appeared that in close proximity to Lady Beecham’s house was another house purchased by her husband and others, which was. intended for the occupation of “ a certain lady.”

Sir Thortas objected to his wife’s house, and published a statement that his wife had no authority to pledge his credit.

Mrs Baldwin’s house in Eaton square, which her husband said was unsuitable for his artistic tastes, was among those Lady Beechara inspected. Counsel for Sir Thomas read the bushand’s affidavit, saying that he made his wifc-. au allowance, but she used the money in ruinous operatic enterprises and m the purchase of balloons and aeroplanes. Therefore ho intimated that he would only pay the bilk ho thought proper. He said his income did not exceed £15,000 a year. The authority ho gave his wife did not mention buying furniture and works of art. He had received claims from tradesmen for £16,000, practically all of which had been incurred since the revocation of the authority. His wife ordered jewellery worth £15,000, instructing that the bill bo sent to her husband, and ho be sued if it was not settled immediately. The jewellers declined to deliver the jewellery. The affidavit concluded that the object of the wife’s recent financial eccentricities apparently was to ruin and bankrupt him.