NAVAL DIVORCE SUIT.

New Zealand Mail, 21 February 1901, Page 13

NAVAL DIVORCE SUIT.

A SENSATIONAL CASE. £4,000 DAMAGES AGAINST A DOCTOR. Sir Francis Jeune and a common jury, in. the Divorce division, London, has just concluded the hearing af the case of “Harvest v. Harvest and Knightley.’’ In this case Major William Sidney Smith Harvest, R.M.L.1., sought a dissolution of his marriage with his wife Evelyn Mary, on the ground of her alleged misconduct with the co-respond-ent, Dr TV alter Randall Knightley, of Gosport. The charge was denied, and l the co-respondent alleged that the petitioner was guilty of cruelty and collusion.—Mr Inderwick, Q.C., and Air Barnard appeared for the petitioner, Air Rose-lnne.s for the respondent, and Air Richards, Q.C., and Air Soper for the co-respondent. Mr Inderwick said that there was a claim for damages in this case. The marriage took place on Alay 13, 1897, and a child was born in August, 1898. In the early part of 1899 they took a house in Gosport. After their arrival there the co-respondent, a medical man in the district, wa.s called in first to attend the child, and then the respondent herself. In Alay of that year the respondent became very hysterical in her manner, and very reserved towards her husband, so much so that he could not quite make out what was the matter with her, as she became discontented. In July .she made the remark to him that they were not getting on very well together, and said, “I think the best thing for you to do is to go to London, and get a divorce.” He, however, treated the matter with lightness. In August and September she became more peculiar, and a Dr Jackson was called in. His first thought was that she had got something on her mind, and she was sent to Bournemouth for a change. On September 27, 1899, she wrote ..a very long letter, in which she said, “Divorce is the only way.” Another letter on September 30 said that she had been “looking up an encyclopaedia” and that she had found “that the Divorce court only sat twice a year,” “that an hotel porter and a chambermaid will be sufficient evidence,” and again that it would he necessary for him “to desert her for two years.” On. Nov. 18 she offered him £IOO to carry out her suggestions with regard to a divorce. Alajor Harvest at last took steps to obtain a divorce, and claimed damages against Dr Knightley, after which the co-respond-ent threw Airs Harvest over altogether. Subsequently there came into the possession of the petitioner a bundle of letters written bj T the co-respondent to the respondent, in which he had promised to marry her when her husband divorced her.

The petitioner was called, and bore out his counsel’s opening statement. Some letters Avere read from Dr Knightley to the respondent, which

showed the affectionate terms on which they were.

It was intimated to his lordship that there was no real defence to the charge of adultery, but that there would be the question of collusion. - Vi Air Richards said that he ly withdrew the charge of cruelty and collusion made against Alajor Harvest. Air Rose-Innes said that Airs Harvest felt very keenly the charge of collusion, and the way in. which she had been deserted by the co-respondent.

Sir F. Jeune. in summing up the case, said the co-respondent’s conduct, had been extremely bad. He was a doctor, and a doctor was under an obligation of honour, as well as of professional duty, to abstain from doing anything to engage the affections of the wife of anyone whom he was attending. Not only whs the co-respondent a doctor, but he was .also one or her Alaje-sty’s officers, and bound by all the obligations of honour winch attach to those serving in that capacity. The evidence showed he was a party to an abominable conspiracy. The co-re-spondent's conduct did not stop there, however, for when the matter came before the court he had the audacity to put on the record charges against the husband both of collusion and cruelty, which the wife, to dp Iter justice, did not make, and from which she 7 had, through her counsel, disassociated uerself emphatically. He wished- to add that if there, were- any stronger words which could, be used than.he. had already done in reference to the conduct pi the co-respondent he woulu be inclined to employ them. No man could express himself otherwise than in terms- ox just indignation, and so his conduct wquld be held by all right-minded men. The jury found that the respondent, and co-respondent had been guilty of adultery, and they assessed the darn aces at £4OOO. His lordship pronounced a decree spr'i, with costs; he also gave the petitioner the custody of the child, and directed the damages to be paid into court within a month. Upon application the claim was amended, as the damages amounted to more than was put down in the petition, a mil a month, instead of the usual fortnight, was given to pay the £4OOO into court.