SOCIETY DIVORCE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 23 July 1925, Page 5

SOCIETY DIVORCE.

AN UNUSUAL STORY

THE HUSBAND’S ALLEGATIONS

BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT LONDON, July 21.

What is described as an anpi'ftce dented story even for the Divorce Court to told to-day, when Alfred Baldwin Blaper, former member of the House of Commons for Bask Islington, sought a divorce from his wife, who is a daughter of Mr. William Andrew- Tobin, of Wingadee station, New South Wales. She divorced her first husband, the Marquis of Cony nin gfaani ill 19- f anci married Raper in 1922. Petitioner charged respondent with misconduct with Dan Metz. Sir E. Marshall Hall, for Paper, applied for a hearing in camera. Mr. Justice Hall, in refusing, said he thought the ease was odious and disgusting, but he had doubt as. to the Courtis power to stop a public ingSir E. Marshall. Hall said that before the marriage Paper realised that his wife, who had a private income of £IOOO yearly, had a most violent temper and strange eccentric ways. Just prior to the marriage a mental expert was called in and he declared that under no circumstances must- the lady marry. Paper had discovered that the real cause of her illness was alcohol, but upon her promise never to touch it .again Paper went on with the marriage. Alcohol, unfortunately, reappeared immeditely after the honeymoon, but she managed to continue a normal life in society. A child was born in 1920. Owing to Paper’s membership of the House of Commons, every measure was taken to prevent the unfortunate domestic secret leaking out. Violent scene* occurred frequently. Once .after midnight a row lasted three hours, respondent being under the influence of liquor, and she broke a hand-mirror over her husband’s head, (the ol'teii struck him and once threatened him with a revolver. She also spat in hr.s face. Petitioner was forced to leave her in 1924. She 'managed by a subterfuge to obtain custody of the child, to which petitioner was devoted.

Paper fded a separation, petition in September. 1921. arid respondent replied by filing a divorce petition, in which she made diabolical charges against her* husband, including drunkenness, unnatural practices and gross orjjelty. Counsel suggested that the charges were invented to try to prevent. the husband, owing to the fear of publicity, from taking legal action to secure custody of the child. Paperhad treated the charges as a tissue of lies, due to the disordered imagination of the woman, who was not normal Petitioner gave evidence that them was red an atom of truth in anv of his wife’s charges. She never once complained of any sort of unkind ness or cruelty till she en tered a cross petition. Tire hearing wa>s adjourned.