SCANDAL IN HIGH LIFE

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9254, 7 January 1889, Page 5

SCANDAL IN HIGH LIFE

THE QUEEN AND THE PLAINTIFF. Press Association.—Electric Telegraph, Copyright i London, January 4. The present of 25 guineas by Her Majesty to Fraulein Wiedemann, the plaintiff in a recent breach of promise case against Mr. R. H. Walpole, heir to the Earldom of Oxford, was made on the Queen first hearing of the girl's misfortune, and some time prior to the trial taking place. PARTICULARS OF THE CASE. From our newspaper files by the mail we loam the following particulars of this rather remarkable case, which was an action for breach of promise of marriage and for libel brought by Miss Valerie Wiedemann against Robert Horace Walpole, damages being laid at £10,000: The defendant denied the promiso, and denied the publication of the alleged libel, and, in regard to the latter, pleaded privilege. As to the promise, he also pleaded that, if made it was made in Turkey, where no action was maintainable. Miss Valerie Wiedemann, tho plaintiff, said she was tho daughter of a pastor of North Germany. At tho time sho met defendant she was staying at tho Hotel dAngleterre, giving lessons to the daughters of tho proprietor. She met Mr. Walpolo in September, 1882, at the table d'hote dinner. He con- I versed with her, and every day he tried to see her. He sometimes came into the room whoro her pupils were, and asked her for books from tho library, or to play some music to him. Ho also asked her to como and see the pictures he had bought at Constantinople, which, he said, ho would be sending to his apartments in London, where he had a large collection. Sometimes she met him when at lunch. On one occasion he followed her on the ten-ace, and talked to her about his journeys in Bulgaria, where he had been, he said, for about eight months to study tho law. Defendant said he would travel round the world, and asked her if she would go with him. She said she would return to Germany, and could not do that. He said that ho liked her very much, and that he liked her from the first minute he saw her. He asked her if she would go with him if sho were his wife, he said she would not marry him, as sho would go back to Germany. Defendant said ho quite intended she should bo his wife, and he would make her so against her will. Sho was angry about it, and she loft the terrace. He followed her, and took her in his arms, and kissed her, and said, " There, now you are already my wifo." Sho was very angry, and did not say anything, and went to her room. The proprietor of tho hotel came and said he had seen Mr. Walpole proposing to her, and seen him embrace her. lie further said he supposed witness was engaged to defendant now. Sho did not say anything to the proprietor, but she did not go down to the table d'hote that evening. The proprietor asked if sho wanted bo go to the opera with his daughters. Sho did go. Thoy gob homo very late. Sho wont to her room. The key of the door was not there. Sho believed she bolted tho door. Sho bolted it without perceiving that it did nob catch. Thero was no light in her room and the window was open. She had been sitting for some time at the open window in her robe de nuit, when suddenly sho saw Mr. Walpole at her sido. Not knowing how he got in, sho was much shocked, and went to the bell. She told him li 6 should leave her room instantly unless he wished her to believo he was entirely mad. She tried to ring the bell, but he prevented her. lie asked her to believe his word, and said she should bo his wife and go with him to New Zealand. She said ib was a great disgrace that ho should como into her room. He tried-to convince her that he loved her, and ultimately ovorpowered and seduced her, she being in a fainting condition. Next morning he sent her a letter and some money to buy a ticket for Liverpool. The letter was as follows : "I will be in the garden at six o'clock, if it is not possible to speak bo you before. There is a man sleeping before your door." Upon the envelope was stated tho prico of the ticket, the name of tho agent, and the time at which the boat started. Tho man in question was a consular policeman. The next day she went to the consul to get her passport. She still wanted to go to Germany. She thought it was Sunday, as the Consul was away. She came back to the hotel and saw Walpole's servant driving away with her luggage. The proprietor of the hotel made a communication to her. She went to see a friend, a lady, arid on the road met defendant, who said he had been waiting for her. He asked her to go to the gardens and she did so. Ho renewed his proposals, asked her to trust him, said ho would like to marry her, and said he liked her. Ho also said she was already his wife now. She did not entirely refuse, bub still sho was very angry with him. She said she would oniy go with him if ho would contract a marriage at the consulate. He said he would do all sho asked, bub it was not possible that day, and it would do bhe next morning. Under this promise sho consented to go with him to the Hotel Luxembourg, where he said he had ordered her luggage to be brought. They went together. Ho dined with her. She bold him he had done very wrong, and he renewed another proposal. Ho book off his rings—throe in ■ number—and asked her to keep them all. J Before she could answer he took his signet ] ring and put ib on her finger, and said ib would be a token of his plodge and promise to her. It had never loft her finger since. : Ho stayed a little whilo and then went back 1 to his hotel. In cross-examination plaintiff ' admitted somebody having sent her a por- £ trait ot tho lady whom the defendant 6 married, she poked out the eyes and wrote £ under it, "We shall meet one day, and you £ shall bear my curse to the end of your 1 existence ; this for marrying tho man I was f engaged to marry, and stealing my life's happiness ; rind my maledictions will follow 6 you to tho end of your life." This was sent 1 to Mrs. Walpole. 1 Tho plaintiff was asked if her child was ? alive, bub declined to answer the question. \ She eventually answered that tho child was k still living, but warmly protested against I answoring some questions tho Solicitor- i General addressed to hor with respect to 1 her condition in November, ISB2, saying 8 excitedly, "I will not havo it; it is dis- S graceful; that is not the purpose lam here for, and I will nob have it. It is ridiculous to put suoh questions, and I will nob c answer them." The judge again told plain- c tiff she must answer. She had in a letter c described her condition at that time, and c she was now asked whether she was in that l " condition. Tho plaintiff: " I will nob ans- v wer such questions. Ib is disgraceful (stamp- t ing her foot). No, I would rather go out of 0 Court." The Solicitor-General: Justconsider, ? you have charged in court that Mr. Walpolo " was tho father of a child. The witness : I fc : charge him with having ruined my life. Ho is the father of the child. The Solicitor- 0 General : Tell me tho date in .Tuno, 1883, when the child was born ? I will not give 0 you the date. His Lordship: You must answor the question. The plaintiff (decidedly) : No; I will not. His Lordship : You refuse ? The plaintiff (emphatically) : Yes. His Lordship : You entirely refuse ? 1 -Tho plaintiff (still more forcibly) .- Entirely. Ultimately the plaintiff left bho witnessbox and consulted with Mr. Cock, who 11 afterwards informed His Lordship that the plaintiff declined, in spite of his advice, to answer questions relating to this subject She would rather retire from the case. His Lordship : Then you cannot carry the case Further. Mr. Cock : Nob if your Lordship rules that these questions should be asked. The plaintiff: Thov have nothing to do with £ the case. His -Lordship (to the jury) : Then a , L direct you, gentlemen, to find a verdict i.-, [or the defendant. A vordict was accordingly given for the defendant. 04 al _: n 1