NAVAL DIVORCE SUIT

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4289, 23 February 1901, Page 8 (Supplement)

NAVAL DIVORCE SUIT

A SENSATIONAL CASE. £4,000 DAMAGES AGAINST A DOCTOR. ' Sir Francis Jeunc and a common jury, in tho Divorce division. London, has just concluded tho hearing af tho 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 Walter Randall Knightley, of Gosport. Tho charge was denied, and tui; co-respondent alleged that the petitioner was guilty of cruelty and collusion.—Mr Inderwick, Q. 0., and Mr Barnard appeared for the petitioner Mr Rose-Innes for the respondent, anil Mr Richards, Q.C., and Mr Soper for tho co-respondent. Air Indorwick said that there was a claim, for damages in this case. The marriage took place on May 13, 1897, and a child was born in August, 1898. In tho early part of 1899 they took a house in Gosport. After their arrival there the co-respondent, a. medical man in the district, was called in first to attend the child, and then the respondent herself. In May of that-year the respondent became very hysterical in her manner, and very reserved towards her nusband, 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 wore not getting on very well together, and said, “I think the best thing for .yon 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, 1399, she wrote a very long letter, in .which she said, “Divorce Is the only way.” Another letter on September 30 said that sho had been “looking np an encyclopaedia” and that she had found “that the Divorce court only sa-t twice a. year,” “that an hotel porter and a chambermaid will be sufficient evidence,” and again that it would be necessary for him “to desert her for two years.” On. Nov. IS she offered him £IOO to carry out her suggestions with regard to a divorce. Major Harvest at last took steps to obtain a divorce, and claimed damages against Dr Knightley, after which the co-respond-ent throw Mrs Harvest over altogether. Subsequently there came into the possession of the petitioner a bundle of letters written by the co-respondent to tho respondent, in which he had promised to marry her when her husband divorced her.

Tho petitioner was called, and here out his counsel’s opening statement.

Some letters were 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 tiiab there would bo tho question of collusion.

Air Richard:-: .said that he unhesitating’!y withdrew tho charge of erueuy end collusion made against. -Major i 1 -.i've,--t. Mr Ro-e-lnnes said that- Ah.-, Harvest felt very keenly tin; enarge of coll.i.do'i. and, the way in. which :-nc had been deserted by the co-respondent. Sir F. Jcune, in summing up the cc-e, said the co-re-.pendent’.-, conduct had been extremely bad. lie a a dacU: r , ami a, doctor was- under an ohbyadnon o; honor. . as well a.-, ol prate—on.d , to abstain from el-<i:;anything to engage the af 1 la:’.ioi 1 ■a! Rio wile oi anyone whom be ”.a.-; ai-rr-rdiut-;. Not «n!v was the ce-resnondent a doctor, but ho was one of her Ala ieity’r olim'-iv, and Ivind by all tho obligations ot honour which aitccii to those --caving in that capacity. The evidence showed he was a j-aily to ail abominable conspiracy. 'I ho co-ie-spondent’s conduct did net stop tiieic, however, for when tho matter came before the court he had tne audacity to put on tho recur.'! charges against the husband both c l ' collusion and cruelly, which the. wife, to do her justice, "id not m and from wnicli she had, through her conns''!, dwn socmtwl ;tcrsdf emphatically. J.le wished to am, that if there wore any stronger words whir'll could be used than be had already done in reference to the conduct oi I lie co-respondent, he woiilu be inclined to employ them. No man could expre.v, himself otherwise than in terms m just ii’dign d ion, and so his conduct, would be lit Id by all right-minded men. The jury found (hat (lie rospondmit and co-respondent had been guilty of adultery, and they assessed the damages at. £-1000.

Tfis lordship pronounced a decree nisi, with costs; lie also gave the petitioner the custody of the child, and directed 1 h(, damages to he paid into court within a. month.

Upon application the claim was amended, its -the damages amounted to move than was put down in tho petition, and a month, instead of tho usual fortnight, was given to pay the £-1000 into court.