A NEW ZEALAND CORESPONDENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13499, 28 May 1907, Page 7

A NEW ZEALAND CORESPONDENT.

DEPLORABLE DIVORCE CASE.

PATHETIC APPEAL.

[FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

London, April 19. In the Divorce Court, on Monday, before Mr. Justice Bargrave Dcane, the case of Cox versus Cox and Andrews came on for hearing. This was the suit of Mr. William Lynch Cox, a solicitor, of Swansea, for a dissolution of his marriage with Mrs. Margaret Spears Lambert Cox, or the ground of her misconduct with Frederick Graham Andrews. The suit was undefended. The co-respondent, who was a very old friend of the petitioner's, and also of the respondent's family,, had been in New Zealand, and returned to Swansea about 15 . years ago. From that time the friendship was renewed, and he was a constant visitor at the petitioner's house, dining there frequently. That went on until May, 1903, when Mr. Cox received an anonymous letter in reference to his wife's conduct with Andrews. Ho spoke •.. to his wife and Andrews about it, and told them in the course of conversation that he did not believe a single word of the anonymous letter, but' if people were talking he would prefer that he did not come: so often to the house, and ; from that time the visits were not *so r .frequent ras ■. they.ohad been. Further ~" warnings were* -."received,' 7 and at last .;Mr. Cox ; f discovered! that the corespondent ; was - corresponding with Mrs. Cox. Then the wife left her home, writing to her husband: "I hope you will have ;a happier home without me; perhaps if ; you had tried to make my married life more happy this would never have happened." In a second letter to her > husband she wrote: "Dear Willie,—l hope; for the boy's sake, you will get rid of me with as little scandal as possible. I shall make no defence. I admit my guilt, and Fred, and I have cared for each other for 15 years— ever since he came from New Zealand. I have written to him to Marseilles to return at once, which I am sure ho will do, and I know 1 can depend upon him to look after me. My life with "you has been terribly unhappy always. We have never agreed upon a single subject. I am awfully sorry for bringing Jthis disgrace upon you." '■■■~ The husband replied as follows:—"My Dear Wife,l cannot believe that you, I whom I know to be so pure in heart, whatever follies and imprudences you commit, can really and truly have meant what you : said when you wrote to me that you wore guilty. Surely you ; said that in order to be rid vof me, and not because it was the truth. However hard I may have seemed to you all through our married life, the last five years have burnt away that mask, and shown me that I love you as well as ever I did. ! Of course, I know that you never did and never will love me in return, and it was the never-ceasing gnawing consciousness of that fact, that made me all of which you complain. There is no sacrifice I would not make to have you back again. By all that is dear to you—the memory of your father and mother, the future of —think before you ruin yourself. It is not too late yet for you to come back. Think, think, think, for God's sake of the awful thing you are doing. V; If-. you would return to me, and would rather that we left Swansea, I will sell my business, and go where you like.".-..;. The petitioner, in the course of his evidence, said he had never noticed anything improper between his wife and the corespondent in any shape or form. There were differences between himself and his wife in regard to the education of the elder boy. His wife wished the boy to be brought up for the army, but witness was afraid his son was not fit for it. At the end of 1906 the co-respondent was ill and it .was arranged that he should go away for a change. He learned accidentally that his wife and the co-respondent were . corresponding. He remonstrated with her, and she left home. He ascertained that she went to Marseilles. He understood that she was going; to New Zealand, and he i filed this petition so that she might be served with the divorce , papers before she { left. His wife sailed by the Athenic for , New Zealand, as she intended, but she left it at Plymouth, came back to London, and took his elder son away, and he was now witb his mother in New Zealand.

Other evidence having been given, a decree nisi was granted, with costs against both the wifewho has a separate estate of £800 a year—and the New Zealand corespondent. Mr. William Cox, the petitioner, is an old-established Swansea solicitor, who is highly respected in the town. The respondent, Mrs. Cox, is a very well-known lady of considerable ' personal attractions, and for many years past has been a noteworthy figure at public assemblies, balls, etc., in the town. The co-respondent, Fred. Andrews, is even better known than Mrs. Cox, and is a very popular man in Sw'ansea. Ho is the eldest son of Mr. Thornton Andrews, J.P., of Cefn Eithen, Swansea, the geiiera4 manager and engineer of the Swansea Gaslight Company. The families have lived in the same town, and mixed in the same circles all their lives. -. [