MINNIE PALMER’S DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2549, 29 June 1895, Page 1 (Supplement)

MINNIE PALMER’S DIVORCE CASE.

Our London correspondent writes as follows under date May 10 ; “ Yours Merrily, John B. Rogers,” has in his time played many parts, especially in connection with that elderly ewelamb, Minnie Palmer. 1 remember him particularly well in the rule of the inconsolable husband whose strong heart had been wrung by “ My Sweetheart’s" infidelity, but who was so forgiving and full of love that he would forget all providing only she would return to her affectionate “ hubby." Ondii, this phase lasted till Minnie’s failure as a “song and dance" actress . was unmistakably demonstrated. When Rogers recognised his “own ducky’ 1 had ceased to bo a draw ho wisely concluded reunion would bo folly, and sought financial salve for his badly bruised heart. Sir George Lewis, describing in Court, on Tuesday, how divorce proceedings were brought against hia client, Sir W, Rose, said Rogers demanded £SOOO from them as l lie price of not allowing the case to proceed. In the end witness (who was, of course, Rose’s solicitor) yielded to £6OO being paid the man, £2OO for costs, and £4OO damages. Ho produced letters from “Yours Merrily" in which the injured husband threatened Sir William, and made every effort to terrorise him into paying large sums of money. He even threatened his life. wßftjkiuan, J.P. (“ Volckman’s Jams ArffaL’lio Beat also gave evidence. He was a friend of petitioner Rogers, and was aware Sir W. Rose had paid that much-injured man a sum of money to cover the oxpens-s of the trial, not as compensation. Coin of the realm c uld never heal his excoriated cardiac organ. Witness interviewed a friend of Rose, yclept Maddox. The latter said if Mr Rogers required co respondents for purposes of divorce ho could find him a dozen or two. Miss Palmer’s tastes were catholic. “Give us their names," said Yolckman, but Maddox answered ’twas no business of his.

“Do you call Maddox enquired the Judge. Mr Yelverton (for petitioner) regretted they had been unable to discover the gentleman. Sir William Rose, interrogated, was not surprised to learn . the difficulty experienced in finding Maddox, “ for," said he, in the words of the immortal Mrs Prig, “ there ain’t no sich person." He had no partner of that name, and had nothing to do with the imaginary statement of the non-existent Maddox regarding other co-respondents. The Judge said ho had no doubt whatever that Mrs Minnie Palmer Rogers had committed adultery, but whether to pronounce ft decree or not he felt dubious. There seemed to have been something suspiciously resembling collusion.

Ultimately' tho case whs adjourned. Writing again ° n 17 our correspondent says;— From the effusive manncV ln 'Unch the friends of Wilhelmina lingers, .otherwise Minnie Palmer, fell upon that apr."mly little lady and congratulated her wkeif Sir Francis Jeune give “’Yours, Merrily ’’ a decree nisi and costs last Tuesday afternoon, they evidently did not consider division from tho injured husband an absolutely irreparable misfortune. Tho co-respondent in tlie present divorce suit has boon mixed up by many people with ilia predecessor iu Rogers v. Rogers and Rose. But there is, as the papers say, “no connection.’’ Mr John R. Rogers wo learnt last week dropped his notion against Sir William Rose in consideration of certain financial transactions brutally rehearsed in tho witness-box by Sir George Lewis. Tho “ co" in the present action is MrJorratd, who has recently boon acting as Wilhelmina’a managerAd irUery-JWUQ proved against the pair without Ibo ■m’fftU.est . . . difficulty. Bui Sir Francis Jeunc suspected “Yours Merrily" of “winking | tho other eye," or-, in legal parlance, of connivance. John R. was pained that the Judge should misunderstand his broken and blighted heart. Sir Francis, however, insisted on putting Wilhelmina (“lean,” said a wag, “ seo tho ‘Will’ and the ‘ hell ’ in her, but I’m blest it I know wliero the ‘in inn * comes in,") in the box. Sho was coquettishly arrayed, and wore diamond earrings. Miss Palmer angrily disclaimed the suspicion of connivance.” “I’ve not spoken to the man." she said, moaning her “devoted hubby,” “for three years." Sir Francis was also rude enough to ask if slic’d had any of tho £OOO Rogers extracted from Sir W. Rose. “ Certainly not," replied “My Sw-eot-hoart,” pouting. “lam no blackmailer." Mr Claude Maguiac, who proved to be tho “ Mr Maddox " vaguely referred to by various witnesses, explained the enigmatic speech he made nnent tho oaao of providing many other co-respondents. He met Rogers and a friend on Sir W. Rose’s behalf just to discuss matters. Rogers made some rude remarks about his wife. Thereupon witness observed “ Ob 1 I daresay if would bo easy enough, as you say, to find other co-respondents besides Rose." Witness, however, did not mean Jerrard, had never oven heard of him. Sir Francis Jeunc Ultimately decided to pronounce the decree nisi, hut intimated that he should send certain papers to the Queen’s Proctor, who might intervene. —“ Lorgnette ” in N.Z. Mail.