MARRIAGE BY ADVERTISEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12991, 7 October 1905, Page 2 (Supplement)

MARRIAGE BY ADVERTISEMENT.

JUDGE'S HINT TO A NOVELIST. Within a few months of his first wife's death Mr. William Sheppard, of Balfour Road, Ilford, and formerly licensee of the Commercial Hotel, Gravesend, inserted an advertisement in a weekly newspaper for a second domestic partner. Miss Elizabeth Baker eventually became Mrs. Sheppard, but within the short space of six months she was compelled to take proceedings in the Police Court-. Recently sue commenced a suit for divorce, which was concluded on August 3. She alleged that her husband had been guilty of misconduct, cruelty, and desertion. In answer Mr. Sheppard admitted infidelity, but denied the desertion and cruelty. Further, he pleaded that if the cruelty was substantiated his wife had eonaoned it, and, in addition, he made a counter-charge of misconduct against his wife with a dispenser named William Gracie, who gave evidence in support of the charge, and with Edwin William Davies, a solicitor's ckrk. The lady emphatically denied the charges. When the hearing was resumed next day Mr. Kemp, K.C., addressed the jury in a vigorous speech lasting an hour and a-half, anil incidentally described Gracie as "a contemptible cur," and expressed his regret that Davies had refused to give evidence. In the course of his summing up Sir Gorell Barnes said that the case was a good illus--1 ration of the disadvantages attending marriage by advertisement. His Lordship considered* 1 lie respondent worthy of the literary attention of Mr. W. W. Jacobs, for Mr. Sheppard, nearly 70 years of age, and the father of ten children, afforded an excellent character study. What Grade's motive was in coming forward to give evidence implicating the wife a lid himself His Lordship had failed to discover,- but it was for .til® jury ' to decide the question. He pointed, out'that it was very dangerous to Convict a person of misconduct on the evidence of oiie witness alone. After ten minutes' deliberation the jury found that the husband had been guilty of misconduct and cruelty, but that Mrs. Sheppard had neither condoned the cruelty nor been guilty, of impropriety. On this finding the learned president granted a decree nisi with costs against the respondent, remarking that there was no need to discuss the question of desertion, which counsel had previously agreed to leave to his decision,' : ■ .. . ,