AN ARISTOCRATIC DIVORCE CASE.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5392, 27 May 1879, Page 3

AN ARISTOCRATIC DIVORCE CASE.

The caße of Norton v. Norton and Grantley, in the London Divorce Court, created considerable interest from the position of the parties connected with it. It was the husband's suit for a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent. Both the respondent and the co-respondent answered and denied the adultery. From the opening statement of Mr Sergeant Parry it appeared that the parties were married at New York on June 22, 1870. After the marriage they lived at New York and Montreal, and in England at St. John's Wood. The respondent appeared to have been in delicate health, and in 1873 she went to Paris to seek advice. In 1874 she went with her father to New York for the benefit of her health, and in the interval her husband, Colonel Norton, took employment in the Turkish service in a force which had been organised by Colonel Baker Pasha. In March, 1878, the respondent returned from. New York and proceeded to join her husband at Constantinople. Lord Grantley accompanied her, and when they arrived at Constantinople unpleasantness arose, and the result was that the respondent and the corespondent left together, and were stated to have lived together as man and wife ever since. Colonel Norton, the petitioner, stated that he was married to the respondent at New York on June 22, 1870. After the marriage they lived there and at Montreal. They then came to England and lived at St. John's Wood, His wife was of delicate health, and in 1873 she went to Paris for advice. In 1874 they resumed cohabitation, and soon after the respondent went with her father to New York. She remained there until March, 1878. In the interval he took employment tinder the Turkish Government in a corps which was organised by Colonel Baker Pasha. He heard that Lord Grantly was . in England at the time of his wife's arrival, lie never heard that he attended his wife to Paris, but on the 28th June, 1878, they both arrived at Constantinople. He got a telegram stating that Lord Grantley was coming with her. After they arrived unpleasant circumstances arose. They lived at his house in Constantinople. One night he came home unexpectedly. He found his wife in her bedroom. She seemed very much confused. She said she thought there must have been thieves , in. the house. He found the " thief "to be Lord Grantley. She said that up to a

week previous she had been a virtuous woman. Lord Grantley and his wife left next day, and he understood that they had been living together ever since. Emily Lagseys stated that last year she was chambermaid at the Langhain Hotel. -A lady and gentleman came there. They gave their names as Lord and Lady Grantley. They lived there as man and wife, and she recognised the photographs shown her as being those of the respondent and co-respondent. Mr Inderwick stated that, the claim for damages having . been withdrawn, ho had no defenco to the caso. Sir H. James stated that he could not defend the case on the part of the respondent, and there would, therefore, be an ond of it. Under these circiimstanoeg the jury, under the direction of the learned judge, gave a verdict for the petitioner, and the court pronounced a decree nisi with costs.

722