A DOCTORS DIVORCE CASE

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1748, 6 September 1905, Page 65

A DOCTORS DIVORCE CASE

"an ECCENTRIC WIFE AND LONGSUFFERING HUSBAND. /

A petition for divorce by Dr. P. W. Fraser, which came before the Melbourne court on the 16th inst. revived recollections of a sensational shooting case and subsequent trial in. 2899. On that occasion Mrs Fraser met her husband in the street and it was alleged deliberately shot him in the head, lo the surprise of the general public, the jury at the lady's trial for attempt to murder accepted her plea of accident and found her not guilty. The recent proceedings for divorce alleged that subsequent' to the shooting incident iespondent had threatened her husband s life. Since the 23rd September. 1899, they had lived apart. Petitioner, was afraid of her, and refused to live wirh her. He offered to support her but she declined. Respondent kept a hotel for ten months, and she then left Melbourne secretly, under the name of Mis Wallace, on 16th February, 1901Petitioner next heard that his wife had called on his father, Dr Fraser of Wolverhampton, England, and had left their child with him. The child still resided with his father. Respondent expressed her intention of going to South Africa, but petitioner next heard of her from various parts of the United States. Eventually he received* the following letter : - *

P. 0., Seattle, „Washington... U.S.A., 7th Aiigust. 1903. To Dr. P. W. Fraser, — v

Dear Sir,—-I wrote you a letter informing you that 1 was divorced from you on 15th March, 1903, I also wish to inform you 1 was married on Ist April, 1903, to Mr Theodore M. F. Budden, an English gentleman. I wrote your father to this effect, informing him that my marriage would make no difference re my agreement with the child. I have always trusted you just and fair in the past re the child, and I will do so in the future. lam keeping the name of Fraser-Budden because of the child; also I have bought property out here, so am having it put into that name. My husband, of course, just calls himself Budden, but. I am using the other to simplify matters re my property. Wishing you all happiness, I remain, KATE BUDDEN. Snbsequently petitioner received photos of his wife and her new husband. He had never been- served with any divorce papers. In July, 1903, petitioner received word that Budden had been killed in a railway accident. From iurther inquiries petitioner heard that the respondent was in February, 1905, at Kansas city, but he was unaware of her present addresspresent address. He present address. He had not previously taken proceedings, as he had been in a bad state of health, and had been unable to attend to the matter; also, he bad bad insufficient means to 'prosecute the suit.

Mr Woolf, in opening, said that petitioner, in 1903 had received the following letter: — 300, Bowdle Street, Mitchell, South Dakota, 21st March, 1903.

To Dr. P. W. Fraser. Dear Sir, —I am writing to inform you that my divorce was granted 16th March, 1903. Also, 1 am awarded the right to* the custody and control of oar laughter, K. P. Fraser, the child of our marriage. This, you will find, will make no difference re the arrangements 1 have made with your father, Dr. J. Fraser, of Wolverhampton. Also, the child can write you. In the matter of the child, I only wish to do all that is just and fair, both to yourself and the child. In my past conduct i have always done the fair and just thing re the child, and in the future I trust to do' the same. Wishing you all happiness in your future life, believe me, I will remain always your well-wisher, KATE FRASER. In the early part of the present year respondent had written to Dr. Fraser, and had asked him if he would care for her to come back to Australia ana look after him. She said that she had bought a house at Montana, and received for it 60 dol. per month; also, that she was supporting herself by singing, and if she came to Australia she could teach singing. Petitioner had received from England the following letters, which his wife had written to their child :

300, Rowdle Street, Mitchell, South Dakota, 3rd April, 1903. My Darling Baby,—l divorced papa, Dr. P. W. Fraser, on 16th March 1903, and I was married yesterday, the Ist April, 1903, at 2 o’clock, to* the gentleman whose photo I sent to you in the locket and on the card, sweetheart. He is an English gentleman, travelling in America for his pleasure. I know that you will like your new papa, dear, and I want my little girlie to write him a nice long letter. He has seen your photo, and told me to tell his little daughter that *we are going to try to come to England soon to see his little girlie. Mama is very happy. I have someone to look after, and take care of me now. Please tell grandpa that lam going to Witte him a letter. (The balance of the letter was missing.)

Seattle, Washington, Bth June, 1903.

My Darling Babe, —I received your letter, dear, and I cannot tell you how glad I was to receive it. Well, sweetheart, you can see by the above address that I have taken my old nameWell, sweetheart, Mi* Budden met with a railway accident, and was killed, so

I am all alone again. There are a great many accidents out here in railways. Not anything is thought about it. Well, sweetheart, I am studying singing, under Madame Armante. She is a splendid teacher. I have a room at the hotel, nicely fitted up with a piano. I was at one of her concerts the other evening. Why is it you have removed to a new school? Does not auntie treat you well ? What kind of a birthday did you hare, pet? I wish I had been home. We would have had a good time. Never mind, sweetheart, I want to get on with my voice, as I have studied so far and earn money with it. Study music, baby! This is what I am anxious for you to know, and then I can teach you the singing. I am studying the Italian method now. Well, goodbye from now, sweetheart, with all my love, MAiuA.

P.S. —I am only three weeks 7 by water journey from Australia. There are a great many Australians here. Coo-ee. xxxx xx. All for haby, my love. Paul "Wilkes Fraser, who was permanenuy injured by the revolver shot, and in consequence had to be assisted into the witness box, gave evidence which corroborated the statements in his affidavit- He added that he had received a letter from his child the previous day. She was now at a. boarding school. In describing the treatment he had received from his wife, ho said that on one occasion he could not put on his boot. He found thao a photo of his dead sister had been forced into the toe of the boot. While staying at Hampton House, St. Kilda, his wire locked him in a room, and he had to get out through the fanlight. She was then ordered off the prenii-ses, and went to the Federal Coffee Palace. Frequently she threatened his life. While living together at St. Kilda in 1899, respondent stabbed him in the wrist while ho was in bed. Lacer she threatened to shoot him. His Honour cMr Justice a’Beckett): Never mind that. She did shoot hvm. Petitioner said that in September, 1899, respondent threw a chisel at him, and then poured a pot cf paint over him. He had to remove it with turpentine. Two days later she shot him. While he was in a private hospital prior to the trial, respondent suggested that they should live together again. Petitioner agreed, but said lie wou.d have to waif, until he grew stronger. Respondent was tried and get off. After that she never wanted to see him again. Respondent became the licensee of a city hotel, and at the end of ten months left for England with their child. He recognised the photo (produced) as that of his wife, and he understood the man in the photo was her new husband. The photo had been sent to his daughter, and on the back was written. “Manv Jiannv returns or the day, from mamma and cousin Fred.”

E. J. Corr, proctor ror petitioner, said that in March, 190*0* after the trial, he had a conversation with Mrs Fraser. She said, ‘ You and he (her husband) got me the six weeks un gaol, and I would like to do to you what I did to him.” Witness said, “It is no use talking like that, your husband wants to know whether you will live with him again.” Respondent replied that she never wanted to live with, him again. Subsequently she asked if the doctor wanted a divorce, and added that he could easily get grounds, as she could arrange to have a man coming out of her bedroom at night. Witness said he would not have anything to do with such a proposal. O’n another occasion respondent saw witness, and asked if her husband wanted the child. She said she was going to America, where she could make plenty of money, and the child would be an incumbrance. Witness said the doctor wanted the child, but a few days afterwards respondent disappeared, and took the child with her. Ex-Inspector Hillard said that in 1900 respondent told him that she never wanted to' see her husband again. Other evidence was given that respondent had stated that if her room were watched men would be seen coming out of it. An order nisi was granted on both grounds.