A SCANDAL IN HIGH LIFE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6996, 19 April 1884, Page 2 (Supplement)

A SCANDAL IN HIGH LIFE.

An action has been brought by the trustee of a deed of separation entered into by Lord and Lady Aylesford, to recover £452, tho amonnt of the arrears of the annuity, with interest, payable under it to Lady Aylesford. Mr. Finlay, in opening. the case, said the plaintiff was Mr. C. T. Fearon, a solicitor, who sued as the trustee of tha deed of separation which Lord and Lady Aylesford had executed in May, 1877. Lord Aylesford by it had covenanted to pay her during their joint lives an annuity of £500 a year, and ic had been covenanted on her behalf that she should not at any future time molest him. Her trustee further convenanted to keep him indemnified against all debts and liabilities that she had already contracted or might thereafter incur. The present action was brought to recover arrears of that annuity, and the defendant had pleaded a denial of the execution by him of the deed, or that the annuity .was in arrear, further setting ug, by way of defence and counter-claim, pleas that the trustee had not kept him indemnified from debts and liabilities contracted by Lady Aylesford, and that she had herself com" mitted a breach of her covenant not to molest him. He had had to give particulars of the aets of molestation of which he complained, and he had said by them that his wife by the commission of adultery with persons known or unknown to him, and by giving birth to a male cliild, had molested him. Acts of tbat kind could not amount to a breach of covenant against molestation ; they were absolutely irrelevant, and ought not to have been introduced in this case. In point of fact, the plaintiff was ao trustee suing, for moneys payable to him for his cestui que trust, and the counter-claim of the defendant was leaUy against Lady Aylesford, and not against him (the plaintiff) at all. Formal proof of the execution of the deed by Lord Aylesford having been given, the plaintiff was called, and iu cross-examination he was asked if he knew that a child had been born in Paris on November 4, ISSI, to whom the name of Guy Bertrand had been given. Objection having beentakeu to this question, a letter was then put into the witness's hands, which he. admitted to be in the handwriting of Lady Aylesford. This letter, which was written to a woman having care of this child, was put' in. It contained the following words :—"I think it best that you should know that his mother's name is Lady Aylesford, and not Mrs. Spencer, as I led you to believe; and Mr. Spencer, whom you have seen, is Lord Blandford, the father of the child.? The witness denied that he was aware that the child had, since it had been livingia it 3 mother's honse, been known as Lord Guernsey. Mr. Waddy, in opening the case for the defendant, said that Lord Aylesford. had at first paid the annuity regularly, though from his pecuniary difficulties he. bad even found it necessary to borrow money to do so. Two or three days after his marriage, he being then Lord Guernsey, he had by the death of his father succeeded to his present title and the family estates, which even then were very heavily encumbered. Lady. Aylesford had eloped with the Marquis of-Blandford, and she had a child by him registered in Paris under the name of Guy Bertrand. This child, •as would be shown, was now living with its mother, and passed under the name of Lord Guernsey. The mere act of living in adultery might, indeed, in many casss be far from a breach of a covenant against molestation ; but the birth of the child which Lady Aylesford had had in Paris had pnt the defendant to great expense and trouble. He had obtained an Act of Parliament in ISS2, giving him power to raise money with which to clear off hisdebts and the encumbrances on his estates, and he had, when the birch of the child of Lady Aylesford had taken place, been obliged to obtain a -second Act, so that she child might, if necessary, be bound by the Act enabling Lord Aylesford's trustees to raise money out of his settled estates to pay off his debts. The learned counsel said he should furnish evidence that Lady Aylesford had been guilty of a breach of her covenant not to molest her husband. Margaret Mayer, Lady Aylesford's lady's-maid, the Duke of Marlborough, and Lady Aylesford .were at this stage called on their subpoenas, but did not answer. A clerk;to the solicitors of the defendant was then put into the box, and said that he went to Lady Aylesford's house on Dec. 15 last to serve subpoenas on her and her lady's-maid. He had then seen the child, and Margaret Mayer had called it Lord Guernsey in his presence.. At this point the application for an adjournment of the case was renewed, and Mr. .Justice Day said that he should adjourn the case for a week, as the Duke of Marlborough was at Cannes, so as to allows him and Lady Aylesford and Mayer and an opportunity of purging their contempt. In the,interval lie should consider the question as to whether or not they could be allowed:.to' be called as witnesses for -the defence, v