DIRTY DOINGS IN DIVORCE.

NZ Truth, 4 January 1908, Page 6

DIRTY DOINGS IN DIVORCE.

A STBNCHFUL SMELLBOURNB SASSIETY SUIT. The Sordid Lives of the Smart Set. WALLACE v. WALLACE AND STRONG.

I Th'o "Sassiety" divorce case of] ]-W|:-.)!acc v. TV-illace is still the topic j of a!j sorting, interest amongst all sctUctiis of the community m Melbr.ano. The ilirtations of M-rs Ruby Eona, Wallace v/itli the co-respondent, Er. Stion 3 :, Cecil JHawkins, of Cbriatc.hureh, Leonard Braund, the Hingiicli cricketer, Reiehter, the lxcrrn?.n, and others, have already been alluded to, and Mrs Wallace submitted to a severe cross-exami-nation at the tongue of Charles Dunkley Wallace's counsel. Allegations | have been made that , Mrs Wallace I used drugs to prevent a continuation j of pregnancy, and that Mr Wallace, used preventives to avoid herjjemception. For two years, according to Wallace, from June,l9os, to July, 1907, he OCCUPIED THE SAME BED as his wife, butv had no marital -connection with her, because, lie was afraid of her giving birth to an idiot or weakling, owing to her use of drugs, but, according to her, the marriage 'bed connection ceased m November, 1905, owing to a. dispute concerning her husband's neglect of her at a Melbourne Cup race meeting. Shfe denies that she' was ever pregnant since her confinement, and had taken certain cachets prescribed by Dr. MacGillicuddy for natural complaints. Wallace employed a private inquiry . agent and others to watch his wife and Dr. Strong, and they gave minute evidence concerning the meetings of the respondent and co-re-spondent at the surgery, at "Novar," and m the streets. The housekeeper at "Novar" described the sovciety at that place in' a most unfavorable light, alleging drunken-, ness, adultery, and general lewdness. Nurse ' So'den, who has charge of the petitioner^ child, > gave sensational evidence regarding the use of drugs and an alleged illegal operation. . ■ .• , - THERE ARE NUMEROUS "EXHIBITS" m the case, and those include letters of a more or less compromising character, as well as indecent photographs found m Mrs Wallace's desk. The respondent's defence is thnt she has been neglected by her husband, wrongfully accused, and made unhappy by a denial of the marital privileges to which she considers she .was entitled. Sample of the respondent's crossexamination : — Have you walked at night ; for a long time with Mr Mills "m a distant suburb, and come back with him ?— Not exactly that, but I have spent a lot of time m his company. I have not been out walking with him at night, but he has been the same sort of friend to me as Dr. Strong. . Mr Duffy : I feel inclined to says I hope he has not, for your sake. Now., have you ever done anything like you, did that night for Dr, Strong for | any other man ?— I have walked home with different gentlemen. That won't do. Have you done anything like it for any other man ?-—I can't say I did it for him. \ You li'kofl Dr. Strong very, much ?— . He has been LIKE AN ELDER BROTHER. , But sisters don't go for long walks m distant suburbs with elder brothers, do they ?— I was absolutely alone. I had no one > But is there any man. m the world you have similarly favored ? — No. Mrs Wallace had a weak foot, and Dr. Strong strapped it up. Did he take off your stocking ? — No, I took it off. Was it done innocently ? — Yes. 1 How long did he take to strap your bare foot up when tlfe^stocking had been removed ?— 'About half an hour. Then he was fiddling with, or, shall I say , touching your foot m his room for about half an hour at a time, and at night ?—^Sometimes he would pad it with strips of sticking plaster. Well, when this pleasant little operation was over, what was done during the rest of the time ? — I would talk to the dodtor about other complaints, and also m a friendly way; After that, where would he sit V— On a chair. /• . • And you would sit on another chair? —Yes. ' , That would occupy from one to two hours ?— Yes. Now, do you think if your husband knew of all this . he would approve ?— I. don't know. He took so little \inf.erest m me. I did not think I was doing any liarm. . Then why did you go out of th# back gate ?— Any man I was witli was spoken about. Oh, is that the character you eive yourself ? — I mean because it was known Mr Wallace and I were illfriends. Mrs Wallace- said she smoked 15 cigarettes a day and reduced the number to five on account of a weak heart. \ If this man (indicating an' individual named Cfargurevitch) says that while drifting m a boat on the rives at Jimmy's Point he saw you and i Reiehter together, with the latter . .

you, behind a bush, would that be true ?" "It is absolutely untrue," said Mrs Wallace, emphatically j "there is no foundation for it at all." Mr Purves outlined the case for the respondent, remarking that Wallacte was a jealous, suspicious man, and extravagantly swelled little things into big, insistant charges. Hjc wanted to divorce his wife, and Mrs Wallace wanted a divorce from her husband, who had led her a life of misI cry. There had been grave indiscretions on the part of a silly young woman, who , now deeply regretted them, and certainly would never repeat them. It was absolutely false to say she ever committed adultery with any man., The charge had had an origin m suspicion, and sprang from a jealous mind. It had been inferred Mrs Wallace had ••- = • ■• MARRIED FOR MONEY.Such was not ,the case. She was a very attractive girl, perhaps not' as well educated as she might be, but she was ljea,utiful and of an affectionate nature. \He went to England and sent for her to come and marry him. When she was only a bride of a day or two he showed his sulky temper, and told her she belonged to a vulgar crowd. On crossing the channel at Dover she was very seasick. Even while she was carrying iris child he was .continually jealous of her, and sulked at intervals. Etc laid m bed with her and never so much as spoke. She was so much left alone that she reproached him with his neglect other. '■- As a result of her grief TJrlfß CHILD WAS BORN before its time. Wibfm she was just about to be confined he did a thing which affected her very much. There was no period iii the history of a wot man when she needed attention so. much— when every little mark of love and kindness was treasured up fey her ; but what did Wallace do ? Hte went away and left her, a young thing of 21 years of age, to cry and weep alone. The child loved its mother and called her "M'uzzer." .It was suggested, a man 1 named Cecil Hawkins,,, a . clerk m a trustee agency at Christchurch, had , changed Mrs Wallace's affection. As a fact that man was engaged to Miss Arenas. The evidence taken on commission m New Zealand was apparently dictated b!y the wildest, foimdationless jealousy and rankest suspicion^ DISGUSTING QUESTIONS had been asked.- Just before going to Sydney Wallace told his wife that a man named 'Hooper had boasted that he had committed adultery with her when he (Wallace) was absent yaqhting. The lady did not even know the man, and indignantly accused her husbjand of cowardice m not striking her foul traducer. The ivisit to, Sydney was similarly haunted with jealousy-; .- This time ...it. .was. Braurid, a professional cricketer. He left his wife and a lady frjend, Mrs Macgillicuddy, to amuse themselves as best they could while he 'watched; his jnew yacht, the Bona, being constructed. There was never any impropriety .between Braund and Mrs Wallace. Wallace -was' m; receipt of £5000 a yeai&arid he allowed his wife £300 offly to find clothes for, herself and family. He sent his wife to ; Melbourne, where Braund was, and; went away on a yachting' cruise himself . TJien he was guilty of briw tality m writing on a piece of paper ' used forcer-tain purposes^ and placing iit on her dressing table. He !would go to bed with her, take his sside, and if she by chance or design lay close to him. he would . .push her away with his /foot or arm. Why did he sleep with her ? It was a bitter piece of cruelty. / If he desired a separation he, could have slept -m a different l-oom. ■ SHE WAS A .PRETTY WOMAN, and" his wife, . and was lying beside him, yet >he constantly repulsed her. He said she took drugs, and he "vvas ■ afraid- of being thp father of an id-ioii or a monstrosity. In truth, she was being treated with tonics for certain female ailments. Counsel asked the jury to . disbelieve Mrs Sidey's evidence of the 'life at "Novar." Mrs Sidey , said Mrs Wallace and Mrs Parker were drunk. There was no cor-, roboration of that. There was no other evidence to show that the ladies were over drunk or ever under the influence of drink. According, to SiI dey these ladies went to bed and CONSUMED OVER A BOTTLE OF WHISKY, finishing up with gin like dirt}' drabs, and then went out the same evening. . It was a pack of lies— loo ghastly anil ridiculous. It was a tissue of impossible .falsehoods. Then as to the dancing, etc., > three times a week — 'not one solitary orgie, but a coni t-inued series of orgiesv. It was absurd.: and" a wicked parcel' of lies from be- ! ginning to end. N Mrs Sidey practicalIly said "Novar" was a Ivrotbel, and j everyone m it had committed adultery. .If that was so, why need Mrs Wallace and Dr. Strong trape about | the, streets, and go into dark pantries ? At Dr. Strong's surgery there was nothing but the operating chair, and there was no opportunity to commit adulterous acts except on the bare floor. A man m Dr. Strong's position could find ymany places if he wanted to— hotels or restaurants. He and slip were very old friends, and she consulted him professionally, except they .had friendly conversations. She had ache of the face, which came on at a certain season. There was also a displaced bone m her foot. He sent her his Account for professional services. Would I he do that if she were his mistress— if she were LENDING HIM; HER BODY x for the gratification of his desires ? A large amount of evidence was called m support of these remarks. On. Tuesday, last the case was con-« eluded. The jury, by 1L to 1, found, for the petitioner. A decree nisi was 'granted, and the co-respondent. Dr. ! Strong, was. ordered to pay the petitioner's costs, * '