THE RUSSELL LITIGATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11650, 11 May 1901, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE RUSSELL LITIGATION.

THE COUNTESS CHARGES THE EARL

WITH BIGAMY. Is the Divorce Division on March 28 Mr. Justice Karnes had before him the petition of Mabel Edith, Countess Russell, for the dissolution of her marriage with John Francis Stanley, Earl Russell, of Amberley Cottage, Maidenhead, on the ground of his bigamy end adultery with Mrs. Somervilie. The suit was undefended. The petitioner was accompanied by her mother. Lady Selina Scott, but the respondent was not in attendance.

Mr. Inderwick, K.C., who. with Mr. Barnard, appeared for the petitioner, said Countess Russell was asking for a divorce on the ground of the bigamj and adultery of her husband, Earl Russell. They were married on February 6, 1890. At the end of a lew months ihslady left her husband and made certain charges against him which had been more or less the subject of investigation, and which in no way affected this suit. In 1824 Lady Russell was anxious to be reconciled to her husband, and brought a suit for restitution of conugal rights. The husband opposed that, and in the result no order was made, he at the same time applying for a decree of judicial separation, v. hich also failed. Nothing more transpired until June last year, when Countess Russell read in the newspapers that Earl Russell had in America obtained a divorce fiom her and married Mrs. Somervilie. .She made inquiries, with the result that the present petition was filed on June 27 last yen'. The story now to be investigated was this. Earl Russell had a house at. Maidenhead, where he had lived, and Countess Russell lived vAXih her mother a short r'jisiunce away at Bray. About the year 1353 Karl Russell made the acquaintance of Mr. and Mrs. Somervilie, and in the course of 1099 Mrs. Somervilie and two children lived in a, cottage at Maidenhead, which belonged to Karl Russell. She remained there until July, when Earl Russell went, to America. Mrs. Somervilie disappeared about the same time, and no doubt she went to America with him. Till'; AMERICAN DIVORCE.

On August 21 of that year they were found together at the Riverside ' Hotel, Otlenbrook, State of Nevada. ii came to the. knowledge of Mi'. Somervillc that his wife had eloped, and -".hen she came back to this country with Marl Russell .last year Mr. Somerville presented a petition for divorce, and damages amounting to £1500 were awarded against Karl Russell. The next thing that happened was, that on March 5, 1900, Karl Russell filed a claim in the County Court of Douglas, in the Slate of Nevada, for a divorce. He made an affidavit upon which the petition was filed and the decree granted. He alleged that his wife had deserted him, and still continued to desert him up to the time of the filing of the petition, without his consent and against his wish, and that site had refused to return to him, although requested by him to do so. That statement, was made for the purpose of obtaining the jurisdiction of the Court to grant a divorce on the ground of desertion, and it was a statement which was absolutely untrue. It "was alleged also in the affidavit that personal service of the petition on Lady! Russell could not he effected, but that " her last known place of residence was Fcrnhurst, in Sussex. Countess Russell had never been there in her life. Un that affidavit an advertisement was ordered to be inserted in certain papers to satisfy the demands of the Court, and in April, 1900. an entry was made in the Court books that there, was no answer to the petition and no answer to the advertisements. Thereupon the Court accepted the affidavit of Karl Russell, and a divorce was granted. Countess Russell had no knowledge of this until she rend in the newspapers a report of the divorce. Under the circumstances, that divorce was \pne which could not be recognised in England. His Lordship: I suppose Lord Russell is domiciled in England? Mr. Inderwick: Oh, yes. He came back immediately afterwards.

His Lordship: Then according 'to our view the Court there had no jurisdiction to grant a divorce. MARRIED IIY A JunCK. Mr. Inderwick: Absolutely no jurisdiction whatever, The next thing that happened (continued counsel) was the marriage to Mrs. Somerville. They again went to the Riverside Hotel, being accompanied by a young man, and the. earl obtained a license authorising the marriage of John Francis Stanley "Russell and Molly Cook," and made an affidavit certifying that he resided in England, and that [Molly Cook also resided there, and giving her age as eighteen years. The marriage ceremony was performed at 'the hotel by a judge. After the ceremony they came back to England, and went to Maidenhead, where they had lived together us man and wife. The lady had been married twice before, and was now representing herself as Countess Russell.

His Lordship: Have the old proceedings any effect on this suit? Mr. Indenvick: No. As far as Lady Russell was concerned, there was no matrimonial offence ever alleged against her. His Lordship: She failed in the jiestittltion suit?

Mr. Inderwick: Because in the circumstances before the Court it was held that there was no jurisdiction to compel Lord Russell to take her back.

Countess Russell was then called, find gave evidence in support of her counsel's statement, adding that it became necessary for her to (go on the stage to earn her living, her husband not having made, her an allowance. No papers in connection with the alleged American divorce, were ever served upon he:', and it did tint come to her knowledge that Lord Russell had gone through the ceremony of marriage with Mrs. Somewille until she saw it announced in. the papers. She had iiever lived at Fernhurst.

Replying to his lordship, Mr. Inderwick said there was no original desertion on the part of Countess Russell. As the result of the long litigation, between the pap-ties, they were left in the same position as they were in before.

Examination continued: Her husband had never requested her to come back and live with him.

Evidence taken on commission in America was then read in support- of the case, while testimony was- adduced as to the respondent living with Mrs. Somcrville at Arnherlev Cottage.

His lordship granted a decree nisi, with costs.