THE LARGE DIVORCE CASE.

NZ Truth, Issue 78, 15 December 1906, Page 6

THE LARGE DIVORCE CASE.

Sickening Revelations. A Decree Granted. Frolicsome Emma Large lost her wifely status a t Christchurch t'other day, and didn't look over-pleased ■ about it. either. The case had been adjourned for some reason or other, and came on quite unexpectedly, and she went up. Her ex-husband, Harry Lar&e, is m the hotel line of business, and isn'C a bad sort of chap, but h'xs Lec-n saddled by an incubus m petticoats who doesn't seem to' have been very particular about her morals at all.', A month or so ago -the lady obtained an order for 7s 6d •«main:enance from her .husband,, bang •m the £ace of some particularly smelful evidence against her m the matr ter;of adultery : and Magistrate Day made some strong remarks about the . ccnluct of Lawyer Graham in* put-■t-ih'r rv.en m. the box who were going 'to , incriminate themselves. Recent '. events^ however, have shown that•lGraham was rather too roughly keelhauled . as. he put- the same men m the ; box m the- Supreme Court and eot a •decree m divorce. The petitioner, H. Xnrj'e,; in the course of his evidence, said' he had riven instructions to Lawyer Hill on October 15, and when his lovely vtifev churned maintenance "he turned itp and put forth A C^HARaE OF ADULTteRY. . Thai c hid been a private separation, he i - ihii his wife twenty quid to go her own way. However., that ,didnt hold good m law. On the Saturday night after it was signed he tackledForbes, the. co-respondent, about the Little Reiver picnic incident. on Labor Day (reported in ' the Police : Court proceedings referred to)- Witness never knew that Forbes was going to tittle River with his wife, fifowever, he heard all about it from a chap named "Hoi arts, who informed him that Forbes and others had ,had in- -. tercourse with the woman on that day, or night. Forbes wasn't a man he gave .drink to without payment. Samuel Forbes, a carter at Sydenham. gave . . SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE. He said that he saw Mrs Large with his .brother m May last, and also' at Little Xh v er on Labor Day. But she hati- other friends 1 who apparently wanted to despoil her of any virtue that she it; ight possess— -a tall man asid another might 1 be termed a blo^-\ Ttrre u.ust have been lashins oMifU'or ?.'. ! hat Little. River Show— a 'rivfr of it, m fact- i as quite a crovv^J < : ?»--.e hor.ie drunk:.-' They rolled home m .the ■•lord's van which: was nrfiiv .veil filled. Robert. /Forbes, a no,raed Clifford, and the "tail man," whoever he was,, ■>. n his presence on them, and tirro vere others whose name, the wi ; :iv - es didn't know. However, there v?.'- a lovclv scene m store for them vb?n .the wi ! n^ss' brajbgr 'and another m?n b c d sexuar int4r<iburse with Mrs 1 rvr m f ron t o^ them all . Bti,t ,. it | w?«n't altof M>"t: 'r>n act of love,':. Mrs t»aid riiqney ..for p|;ostisu:fe Lat-c-r ■'$&'-. t,he "tall man" otjaerv^ lint he Jbadibbe woman engaged £5r the mVht, but the arftount he was to ray for the dubious privilege wasn't mentioned. Thereupon Mrs L. said that she could get beds at Smart's. The fruard, of course, didn't witness the disgraceful wav m which his van was beina; used ; he was away colle^i'in"- tickets. The witness then went on to say that he got off at the phristchurch station. It is pretty evident that the drinky crowd inveigled the wretched woman into the guard's van, and that more than a couple were intimate with her, because Samuel Forbes heard someone invite her m, and then THE LIGHTS WERE PUT OlffT shortly after he entered the compartment. It was approaching dark, and there were men all aiound the two female passengers. What happened^ to woman number two hasn't transpired. In cross-examination this fellow Forbes said that he gave evidence m the Magistrate's Court m the' Lar«b maintenance case, but fc.e never entered that Court with the intention: of swearing m the box tbut he had been intimate with the woman. The next beauty who entered .the box was one Bill Qook, a laborer, who openly avowed that he was a depraved whoremongjßr. He said m a brazen, manner that ihe knew Mrs Large, 1 and bad b#,n intimate with her.. The fellow tiifcn went on to say that he had inteK#,urse with her m a p.lace m Kiirnore-etreet a couple of months ago ; thr//t was the only ocbasion, and he flidn't pay her anything at all. -XJe knew of his own knowledge, that «>ne Jack Bath had intercourse witih: the woman at the same place and 'time. What a choice pair of beasts aj re Cook and Batii ! Under cross-cx?iminatioa this man Cook said he h^i only got. -Hie summons to attend Court on the >previous evening. Lpjrge . had met him and said "1 hfxr. ■tipai.t you had the missus round m & stable." Witness replied •" that it /was true. It appeared that Bath ayd Cook >dro« up m a gig and took Mrs L. away for a drive ; the rest b/appened afterwards. • Concerning the railway van affair, Robert Forbes was the first man to be/ guilty of immoral conduct. The ps/cties were , standmg up the whole time. One witness said at the Magistrate's Couirt that he "didn't get a Chance." He didn't go, to the Court to swear that he conrnitted the act and; then got frighfened. He bad been ordered to leave the box by the ■Magistrate. Mr Justice Uenni?'ton here remarked that . •A MAGISTRATE HAD NO RIGHT to order a witness to leave the box. There was some inqwiry made by Counsel Donnelly as to the whereabouts of Bath, and it was elicited that he had disapoeared. Where he has gone isn't known, but at all events he didn't wish to give evid^ ence. The gig that was used to drive the lady out m was of the ordinary kind, and they went round Harewocdr road and then back to the stables, where the impropriety happened. Followed a. chap named James Clifford, who gave his narrative of the Little River aSair-. The respondent Was knocking about with this mysterious tall m:jQ. and he misbehaved With hor an wn or. they entered the

sward's van and the lights were extinguished. Robert . Forbes and an* other young gent were guilty of simii lar disreputable conduct immediately afterwards. The incident was later on discussed m the husband's hearing about a week later. Robert ! Forbes told the Court that he knew ! Mrs Large, and himself and two others had immoral intimacy with [hor on picnic day. The tall cove was one of them"*, and he remarked that he had paid for a bed for Mrs Large for the night. The defence was a denial of the ram. Emma Larrre averred that she -hadn't committed adultery as alleged. When she went to Little River . she went on her little own, and actually passed the day by herself. On the wav back she stood on the platform, and then went into the guard's van; there was another female beside her there. Also,- there were only three men there— the two Forbes and Clifford ; that was all she. noticed. The story . of . . ' • .THESE BASE INDIVIDUALS -she characterised as absolutely .untrue;: it was. false. Robert . FoSbes was drunk that day, witness went 'on. to s?.v, and she didn't speak to him. The asseveration that - a man was goini to pay for a, bed for her was eaufllly untrue. She hati never told Roht." Forbes that she had passed a nfrht with & man at Papanui. Nor hnd she ever committed adultery with Gobk. Since she had been separated from h*r husband she had resided with friends. When placed on ' THE GRIDTRDN OF CROSS- '": V ' EXAMINATION respondent admitted that she had gone put for a walk at night but not with men. .She went by . herself to Large's brother's place at midnight one night, and they opened the door and let her m. Her intimate friends called her Maudie. No man had visited her m Mrs Webster's house m Tuam-street; She had never been out at night with Bob .Forbes, nor had she been intimate with Bath. It was 'perfectly true that they had gone for a ride together; but there was no harm done. There was another young fellow m the ,gig, but she didn't know his name. Then came a question as to respondent's .a'couaintanceshio with sailors. The lady only had the. pleasure of knowing one Jack Tar,' but had never been out enjoying his luminiious company after nightfaSl,.. Lvttelt'on had been visited by her with lady friends, but not with mrn-o'-warsmen. The names of the friends she was vnable to state ; th/Dv were away. The statement that shs.hod been 'to Mrs Smart's board-in«f-«hmise was absolutely untrue. Rep i ardin<r the witnesses^ statement that slva didn't lriom^KeT names of. •her-' -lad v fr,iends Jua|e : '#eri^iiston WHIPPED, A 'QUESTION AT HER, and she replied that she couldn't explain how if was shp- knew ijhey were away' when she didn't kndw their names. • Latterly she had bijen work-^ ing for. Mrs Webster! ■ The two guards w&re called for the, "defence. Chambers (told toe couit .that the" yans.r^^e^f ll;,'4ig^*a^ & Mp Seax-one-thsre ife|:« Mw*2pr&r ifceriS of tjfee pic#e $*&&', 'I^Snife nevfflf Say if anything; wok place m 'the. first van. Di4n'± know Mrs Large at all. The assistant guard, William/ Wood-bury, said that nobody complained to him. His attention was -drawn to an article m John Norton's "Truth" about t-ho Labor Day picnic. There were 20 people m the van m question and, he thought, w;omen. The lights were turned down. He didn't know Mrs Large except by si«*ht. His attention was called to her at Lyttelton ; . A BOBBY STOPPED HER getting on a train at about midnight. . Mrs Amy Emily Webster, with whom the respondent-has been living, swore that no man ever came to her house for an improper purpose. She still lived there, and hadn't received notice to quit. Never saw Mrs Large the worse for lid.uor, although she oould take "a glass. "And so can V said witness. The respondent had • never been away alone one single night since she came to live with her. Judge Denniston asked this lady some 'questions, and m reply she said that her servant "never goes out without me, nor I without her." . Pretty 'tough ! Continuing, the witness said that she had never been to Lyttelton late at night with Mrs Large. She came to her as she ,was moving into the house— as a friend. Had known Mrs Large for six months, . having been introduced to her m the street a few days before she moved m, by a gent. Mrs Large had told her that Her people had turned her out. . Told her that -she (Mrs Webster) was on the .point of moving, and she helped her to pack up the things. Asked point blank where her husband . was, Mrs Webster replied that he was m Tasmania. His Honor- (to Mr Donnelly) : It looks to me like a try on. The Judge then went on to say. that he had to try a question of fact. The whole story was a most peculiar one; . its- . ■ •■■■•••.-' . ■ . • WAS JN ITS FAVOR. He started with feeling that the story would require strict corroboration, and now he had to consider whether he was satisfied with the evidence. He had to consider demeanour and proof ; he was satisfied that the witnesses for the petitioner were telling the truth. It was an extraordinary story to present to a court of law. Put the scene m an occasion when it could, if untrue, be disproved. He thought they had told .their story fairly and straightforwardly. There was an exceedingly weak case on the other side. The respondent did nbt appear to him to be telling the truth. She was even contradicted by one of the guards . called for the defence. On the whole he believed the story for the petit- ! ioner ; the witnesses gave him the impression that the" were telling the true story. So he granted a decree : nisi, to be made absolute m three months, with costs against the corespondent, Forbes. Lawyer Donnelly submitted that it was a resonable case to defend. His Honor *sa d the ouestion was : Was I the case so weak that proper enquiry wouldn't justify defence ? He thourrht . that after* the Magistrate's decision m the maintenance case that there jwere grounds to defend.

The sequel to this revolting case happened on Monday, when the Magistrate granted Lawyer Graham's petition that the maintenance order (7s 6d a week) should he cancelled. This was done, but arrears had to •be paid, and these only amounted to fifteen bob.