SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14150, 27 August 1909, Page 6

SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE.

' ■ " '■■■' LADY CLARKE'S PETITION,

DECREE NISI GRANTED.

The hearing of the action in which Lady « Clarke sued for divorce from Sir Rupert ' Clarke, on the ground of misconduct' with J Connie Waugh, took place in Melbourne last week. The Court was crowded, many ' women being present. The action was undefended, and Mr McArthur appeared for the petitioner.™ Theresa Sedgwick said she had known Sir Rupert Clarke and Connie Waugh for some years. Clarke came to her, in 1903 and asked her whether she had a room foi a lady, who wanted to stay at a quiet house. He went to the house with Connie Waugh. After that, they went regularly ' about twice a week. Then Connie Waugh went away for about a month. When she ' came back she and Clarke occupied'. the " ; room again. -. Afterwards Waugh went to St. Kilda to live, and witness had visited her frequently until March of this year. Mr. McArthur asked witness to identify some handwriting. .- . Justice a'Beckett: What is that to show? Mr. McArthur: The relations between Clarke and Waugh. Justice a'Beckett: It is obvious, I think. Mr. McArthur read letters, the writing in which was identified by witness as Waugh's. One, written in 1908, and ad- - dressed to Clarke, read: — " Dear Heart, — think I'll go over to Sydney for a few days. I will leave by, the next mail boat. If convenient at your' rooms at 4.30 to-morrow. I will call. I want some money. —Yours, Connie." " Another, written early this year, read:— " Dear Rupert, Don't forget we dine at the Savoy to-morrow evening, seven o'clock. —Yours, Connie. P.S.—Don't go to the .- old theatre afterwards." The evidence called showed that Clarke - had purchased furniture for the house at St. Kilda, and that he had given Connie Waugh different sums of money in circular notes. Amy Mary Clarke, wife of Sir Rupert/ said she was married in December, 1886, in ',, Melbourne. After she was married; she ', went to India, and thence to England., Her husband was with her. She returned about 1887, and after living in Melbourne for . some time she went to Sir W. Clarke's sta- ' tion in New South Wales. Later she went again to England, but Sir Rupert stayed in Australia. After returning witness.. Sir Rupert, and his two sisters went to Japan, but while there they received news of the death of Sir W. Clarke, and they came : b;ick. In 1902 Clarke joined her in, Switzerland. They then went to England,;. - where relationship ceased. Clarke .was very cold and distant in his manner to what he used to be. They had frequent -quarrels. In the same year Clarke came, back to Australia. She had not at ,that, time, A heard anything about Connie Waugh. , i To Justice a'Beckett: When they lived in Park Lane, London, 'she and Sir Rupert had separate rooms. Any member of the household would know that they were living apart. Clarke was always out, and "V.' : would never go out with her. * ~' Justice a'Beckett said that some intelli- . gible explanation would have to be given as to how the unusual mode of living came about." The witness could evidently,give none. Lady Clarke: I suppose—although 'Ldid:tv not know—that he was living with somebody else. To Mr. McArthur: He never blamed me in any way. It was in 1907 that she heard rumours about Sir Rupert and Connie Waugh. Sir Rupert said she was spending too much money, and witness, replied,-"!! you can buy a house' and keep Connie Waugh, you can afford to let me.,have money." They quarrelled, and she. told Sir Rupert she would be compelled take divorce proceedings. He answered, "You'd better do it," or words to that effect.'.' His Honor said there was no defence ia A' the case. He found the allegations of 'misconduct proved, and granted a decree nisi, with costs against defendant. I An application for the custody of 'the ! ■ - I youngest child to petitioner was granted. '