UNSAVORY DIVORCE CASE

Evening Star, Issue 19000, 23 July 1925, Page 5

UNSAVORY DIVORCE CASE

WIFE All ALCOHOL ADDICT Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, July 21. What is described as an unprecedented story even for the Divorce Court was told to-day when Allred Baldwin Rapcr, a former member of the House of Commons for East Islington, sought a divorce from Ills wife, who is a daughter of i\lr William Andrews Tobin, of Wingadoo Station, New South Wales. She divorced her first husband, the Marquis of Couynghain, in 1921, and married Mr Raper in 1922. The petitioner charges the respondent will) misconduct with Dan Metz.

Kir Edward Marshall-Hall, lor Raper, applied iov a hearing in camera. Mr Justice .Hill, in refusing the application, said that though Die. case, was odious and disgusting, he had a doubt as to the court’s power to stop ■a public hearing. Sir Edward Marshail-Tlali said that before marriage Raper realised that Ids wife, who had a private income ol .01,000 a year, had a most, violent temper. and had si range, eccentric ways. Just prior io in's marriage a menial expert was ended in, and he declared that in no circumstances should the woman marry. Raper discovered that (he real cause ol her illness was alcohol, but upon her promise never to touch jl again lie went on with the marriage. Aieobol uulortiinatoiy reappeared immediately alter the honeymoon, but she managed to continue her norma I lilc in society. A child was born in 1923. Owing to Rapcr’s membership ol the llonso of Commons every measure was taken to prevent the unfortunate domestic secret from leaking out. Violent scenes occurred frequently. Once after midnight there was a row lasting three hours, and t-lio respondent, who was under tho_ influence of liquor, broke n. hand-mirror over her husband’s head. -She often struck him, and onco she threatened him with a revolver. She also spat in Ids face. The petitioner was forced to leave her in 1924. _Sbe managed by a subterfuge to obtain the custody of the child, to which the petitioner was devoted. Raper filed a separation petition in September, 1924, and the respondent replied by filing a divoico petition, in which she made diabolical charges against her husband, including drunkenness, unnatural practices, and gross cruelty. Counsel suggested that the charges were invented to try to prevent her husband, owing to the fear of publicity, from taking legal action to secure tiie custody of the child. _ .Raper had treated the charges as a tissue of lies owing to the disordered imagination of the woman, who was not normal. .. , The petitioner gave ■evideueo_ that there was not an atom of truth in any of bis wife’s charges. She had never onro com plained oi :iny sorb of mikiminess or enmity I ill she entered ibo cross-petit ion. The bearing was adjourned.—A. and N.Z. Cable.