THEATRICAL DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11540, 27 November 1900, Page 5

THEATRICAL DIVORCE CASE.

NELLIE STEWART AND SPOUSE a 4 Melbourne, November 20. Yesterday Mr. Richard Goldsbrough Row, who is petitioning on llic ground of desertion for a divorce from his wife, Eleanor Stewart Row, the well-known and popular actress, Miss Nellie Stewart, was examined in the Divorce Court, before Mr. Justice Hood. His affidavit set forth that he was married to respondent in Sydney on January 26. 1884, at the Scots Church manse, by the. Rev. A. Milne Jervis. He was then a bachelor, earning irom £500 to £700 a year as a wool expert, and respondent was under an engagement to Messrs. Williamson, Garner, and Musgrove, playing as an actress in the Australian colonies at a salary of from £10 tc £20 weekly. Her engagement had six months to run, and he was about to depart for England, which he did a week after the marriage, while respondent was going to New Zealand with the Opera Company. Therefore, they agreed to keep: their marriage secret, but at the end ot' six months he was to provide a house for her. While in England he wrote her a number of letters, which she did not answer, but when he arrived in San Francisco on his return journey be found' a letter from respondent, which had been left by Mr. J. C. Williamson. In this letter she said that their marriage had been a failure, and that she would not live with him, nor give up the stage. He saw her the day he returned to Melbourne, but she refused to resume marital relations with him. A fortnight later he saw her again, and she promised to live with him at the end of her engagement. The marriage was then made public, and he introduced his wife to his relatives. She did not keep her promise, but entered into a new engagement with the firm. He frequently begged her to resume marital relations with him, but she absolutely refused, and in 189-1- she left for England. Mr. Row was called, and gave personal evidence to the same effect. He said he remained six and a-half months in England, but respondent, who answered none of his letters, knew his address all the time. The letter he received in San Francisco informed him that she had made a mistake in marrying, that she was ambitious, and unwilling to give up her career, and had resolved to remain on the stage. Afterwards, in Melbourne, she told him she would give up the stage after she had finished her existing engagement. in " Estrella," but she did not, and made another engagement. She refused to return to him, and was not willing to live with him, even if he allowed her to remain on the stage. Ho had written several times, asking her to return to him, but he had not, done so since 1895, thinking it was all over. He would have taken proceedings before, but was not aware, until 18 months ago, that the circumstances of her desertion entitled him to a divorce. Mr. Justice Hood expressed his surprise that any man could live in Victoria and read the newspapers, and not be aware that he could get a divorce for desertion. The delay was extraordinary. He should have taken proceedings at once. Upon the uncorroborated statement of petitioner he' was not entitled to succeed, but it was eventually arranged to allow the case to stand over until the evidence of' Mr. J. T. T. Smith, solicitor, of Sydney, who had advised petitioner, could be obtained. Incidentally, it was stated that petitioner had since his marriage become possessed of a large income. No appearance was made on behalf of respondent. [On November 22 a cablegram announced that' a rule nisi had been granted.]