CLARKE DIVORCE SUIT.

NZ Truth, Issue 219, 4 September 1909, Page 8

CLARKE DIVORCE SUIT.

LADY AMY UNFOLDS HER TALE.

The Adulterous Capers of Sir Rupert.

TREATMENT OF WIFE AND MISTRESS CONTRASTED.

Decree Nisi Granted— Miserable Marriage Dissolved.

As was to be expected (says Melbourne ? "Truth") there was a numerous and mixed audience assembled m the Practice Court on Thursday morning, when the much-talked-of Clarke divorce suit Came on for hearing before his Honor Justice a'Beckett. There were lively anticipations of interesting disclosures as to the alleged naughtiness of Australia's only baronet, whose wife was. now seeking to judiciously terminate her aristocratic alliance on the ground of , her titled spouse's illicit intimacy with a plebeian young woman named Constance Waugh. Curiosity had been whetted by the publication," some weeks ago, of the particulars of Sir Rupert Havelock Turner Clarke's REPUTED AMORS with Connie ( Waugh, as set out m an affidavit accompanying the aggrieved wife's petition for the. dissolution of the. marriage, and spicy amplification of these allegations was looked for on the submission of the complete evidence of the adulterous intercourse complained of. Consequently, some time before the hour appointed for the hearing, seats were at a discount, and standing-room only— nor' much of that— was the order when at length his Honor's associate called the case. Quite a number of fashionablydressed women were amongst those m attendance, and '„'■ ' LADY CLARKE HERSELF was accompanied by a party of female friends. Throughout the proceedings, which occupied about an hour, her ladyship carried herself with the utmost

sang froid, and Rave her evidence, •which, however, did not directly relate to tne issue of adultery, clearly, and •with complete self-possession. The respondent baronet, who left for England on an extended visit a few days , alter < rthe service of the petition and citation, had not en.tered any defence to the proceedings, so that all was comparatively plain sailing for petitioner's counsel. The petitioner's case was conducted by Mr McArthur, instructed "by Messrs Gillott and Moir* SERVICE OF THE PETITION. In accordance with the usual practice, Mr McArthur, as a preliminary to opening the case for the petitioner, called evidence: as to 'the service of the petition and citation. " Thj'j was furnished bt George Allan Moir , j Un r., of the firm <\f Gillott and M6ir, who said he served fhe necessary papers personally on Sir Rupert Clarke. on/ j u ly 14, at St. James's Buildings, WiV .iam-street, Melbourne. He I informed him' that the citation was 'practically a £H'. m?nonSj an d the petition explained the grounds on which 'the dj.vorce .was sousr^t. The respondent replied that he wou/d con sult his solicitors In tbe matter an d the brief interview terrmnatea OPENING ADDRJfISfS. ' Jr McArthur, m opening the casty; said yje respondent's solicitors, Messrs Whit-s-Dg and Aitken, had written to iihe petitioner's proctors after the service of jfche petition, intimating that thrjir clieD.t, "the respondent, did ndt inten'i to msie any defence to the proceeding. In support of , the petition, he proposed to call i Mrs Sedgwick, who knew both the respondent and the girl, Connie Ws ugh, .with i whom he was accused of Waving committed adultery during the yean/ j 1905 and 1906. Mrs Sedgwick had sorof j difficulty m fixing , dates, but she wo^ild tell the Court that during the perjp d mentioned the respondent and GoujdVj Waugh visited her house frequently aij. n'lgtit and that the ■. respondent, paid for j>. bed' for them there.. She. wqiild. tell Mow it? was that respondent, originally r/rrianged for a room; to be provided for > -his; purpose— * that he told Mrs Sedgwir^t that he wanted a room for' a, lady '/riend, and he (counsel) .undertook to satisfy the Court that misconduct occurr. fed AT MRS SEDGWiCK^S HOUSE. In 190& a different ar .rangemsnt was made. The respondent at that time employed a Mr Fenner to purr ,-hase. a house for him at St Kilda— a ho „ called "Rochester," situated m, Acland-street, St. Kilda— ,which was tran^f erre d to ; the respondent oh May 17, 19// G. That house was bought for Connie VVr,u, A h by' respondent, and she lived there rr mi- f ree i£r o m the time it was bought until /March, 1907. She then ap--peared to fave gone to England. She stayed aw? y until January, 1908, when she return/ jd a nd lived at "Rochester" until Mar c h o f the present year, when she"ag&\ n - ■ • ■• . i TOOK HER "DEPARTURE for England, respo/adent providing her ■ wi^i the money with which to book Her pa/jsage. For her journey she was fur- j nfjshed with circulsjx notes by Messrs ] rThos. Cook and Sons' Melbourne office, <which circular notes were equivaVent to bank notes, m that they could be cashed at Cooks' agencies during, or at the close of the journey. About the same time that this woman ■ "Waugh' thus lief t Melbourne for England, the petitioner came .to Victoria from England, arriving here about May of, this year, accompanied by •her daughter, Phyllis, who was married on June 1 of the present year. ' His Honor : I gather from the petitioner's affidavit that she and respondent .were formerly LIVING TOGETHER as man. and wife, and behaving as man and wife, but latterly they were not really m that position. I suppose you propose to call sor.ie evidence as to that, and the changed condition of their rela.tions, and what 1/ed to it ? Mr McArthur ; Certainly. I propose, of course, to call 'the petitioner, who will describe to thf; Court exactly how the marital differences arose, and what they .were, but she can give no evidence to the adultery which we alleged. 'ADULter;.- m south yarra. The first witness was a stylishly-dress-ed young woman named Louisa Sedgwick, who gave her place of abode as Onapelstrcct, Prahcan, but was not asked, and did not volunteer, her condition m life— ■whether married or single. She said she had known the respondent r.ince 1902. She also knew Connie Wauah, and recognised a photojnS'.ph produced as being hers. She hart a conversation with respondent m 1003 on the subject of his bringing someone to her house. It was Bust after his return from Europe, and witness was then living at 37G Punt-road, South Yarra. He said he had a YOUNG LADY FRIEND he wished to lake to a private house, and a::'Kcd wititc-ss jf she would allow him

and his friend to have a room at her place. She agreed, and about a week later respondent came to the house, • bringing" Connie Waugh with him. Mr McArthur : What did they do ? Witness : I let them haye the use of my bedroom. They occupied it together. . Did they STAY ALL NIGHT 7 — They arrived about eight o'clock and stayed until ten. ' Are .you able to swear that they occupied the bedroom ?— Yes. After that, did they visit your house again ?— Yes; regularly about twice a week. Did they occupy the same room and bed?— Yes. I understand that you have taken hot water and' tea to the room ?— Ye&. Have you seen them m bed? — Yes. ' j Do you remember Connie Waugh going | to THE SOUTH SEA ISLANDS ? —Yes. Was she long away ?— About a month, I think. After her return, did respondent and she visit your htiuse again ?— Yes, twice or three times a week. How long did that continue ?— Until May, 1905Can you fix the time definitely, or give me any incident which will enable me to fix it? - ' - His Honor: I. don't think it matters. Witness : Cojnnie Waugh became ill with typhoid fever. •' . . . Mr McArthur : Did their. visits continue pretty well np to the time she went- to , live a-fc Acland-street; St. . Kilda ?— Oh, no.' ' You know she occupied a house at St. Kilda?— Yes, "Rochester." Did you ,- n visit • her there ?— Yes, frequently up to the time she • went away m March last. Do you know Connie .Waugh's handwriting ?— 1 do. His Honor : Wr/at is this to show 7 Mr McArthur (producing ia ' letter); il am going to ' ' 6HOW THE RELATIONS between the /respondent and Connie. Waugh. His, Honor' (gi;hnly) : They are pretty obvious, 1 should think. The witness identified the handwriting of a letter anfi post-card produced as being m Connie Waugh's hand-writing. The letter, which was undated, was as foilows.:— "Roches+uer," Acland-street, St. Kilda, .., Sun<\ay.— Dear Heart,— l think I will!' go to Sydney for a few days. 1 shall- lea. ye by the next mail boat going rounr'i. , ' ' BEAT YOUR ROOMS at <LM) to-morrow. Want some money. — Tr/ottTs, Connie. His /Honor : How does that associate hei- wijfch this house? "Mr McArthur : I am going to' prove ,i \nese letters were found m the house. r they were addressed to respondent. The post-card read :— I March 11, 1909. Dear RjSpert,— Don't forget we dine to-morrow" night, Savoy, 7 o'clock.— Yours, Connie. P.S.— Don't go to the oM theatre afterwards.— U.W. THE PURCHASE OF "ROCHESTER." George Penner, commission agent, said respondent consulted him m April ot May, 1906, regarding the purchase of a house. He gave witness a description of the kind of house 'he wanted, and asked him to look out for one of the sort. Witness subsequently drove with him to "Rochester," Acland-street, St. Hilda, and, ?.fter inspecting the property, respondent bought it for £1350. Witness, under instructions, purchased some of the furniture for' the place. CONNIE WAUGH IN OCCUPATION. John Harrison, manager for G. B. Appleton, auctioneer, estate, and stock and station agent, said respondent employed him to purchase the furniture for "Kochester."- Respondent paid for such furnitore as witness purchased. Witness had seen Connie Waugh at "Rochetser" once, and he knew her as Mrs Waugh. ,Wit-

ness's firm were agents for the house. "While Connie Waugh occupied it she paid no rent. When she was not >m occupation of it it was let furnished, and the rent was paid to respondent, or, failing a tenant; a caretaker was placed m charge, whose wages w.ere paid by respondent. The furniture was bought on June 18, 190 &. There was a caretaker m charge from March 17, 1907, until July 27, 1907, and it was let furnished to a tenant from August 1, 1907, until December 1 of the same year. Early this year witness had a conversation with respondent 1 about the rent of the house after Connie 1 Waugh's departure, and respondent said witness's firm was to hold the rent for Mrs Waugh. CONNIE WAUGH'S TRIP TO ENGLAND. Arthur Eustace Blackburn, accountant, employed by Thos. Cook and Sons, said m 1907 respondent obtained from the firm circular notes to the value of £300 m Connie Waugh's favor, the order being signed "Constance. Waugh, 'Rochester,' A eland-street, "St. Kilda," which order was duly sent to London for the identification of the person presenting the notes to be cashed. The firm received respondent's cheque m payment for the notes. On March 18 : of the present year the respondent again ORDERED CIRCULAR NOTES for' Connie Waugh to the same amount, and again paid for them by cheque. Witness booked the order and received the cheque, and when the notes' were handed to respondent Connie Waugh was present m the office, and went away m respondent's company. When Connie Waugh was m England m 1907 respondent on October 8 of that year ordered £100 to be transmitted to her through the firm, which was done, and again on November 8 of the same year lie transmitted another sum of £100 to her m the same way. LADY CLARKE IN THE BOX. Amy Mary Clarke, the petitioner, whose age was stated m the petition to be 42 and. her place of residence "JMitford," Toorak-road, Toorak, was the next and last witness. She stated that she was married .to respondent^ who is. jwo J^ears

her senior, at Scots' Church, Collinsstreet, -Melbourne, on December 12, 188ti, by the Rev. Jno. P. Ewing. After her marriage she and respondent .went to India. Mr McArthur : You lived .with . respondent as . his wile and COHABITED WITH HIM. Witness : Certainly. In the affidavit accompanying your petition you have traced various places where you lived with respondent ? — Yes. His Honor ' There are, of course, por-. tions of the case which can be lightly treated.- But the Court cannot he satisfied merely with the details set put m the verifying affidavit, which obtains no publicity. It must have evidence directly from the petitioner as to the MODE OF LIFE of the parties to the suit. Mr McArthur: Very well. (To the witness) ; How long did you remain m India V Witness : About four months, I think. Where did you go then? — To England, with my husband. And during that time you were living together as man and wife ?— Yes. When did you return ?— About 1888 we returned to Australia, and WENT TO LIVE first at "Waratah," m TooraK, my father's house, and afterwards at Sir WH-. liam Clarke's station, m Mew South Wales. What happened next ?— I went to England, taking my two daughters with me. My husband remained m Australia. Did the respondent consent to that 7— He did. How long were you away that time ? — About a year. When you returned ' WHERE DID YOU (JO? — I went to live at "Rupertswood'' with my husband. Again as man and wife ?— Yes. What next ? — I accompanied him and his two sisters to Japan, leaving the two children behind. In 1899 I again ,went to England, taking, my daughters with me. Was that witli respondent's consent.?— It was. I went to England principally

for the education of my girls. I remained m England for some time, and about December, 1901, t went to India. On your return from INDIA TO ENGLAND did respondent join you ?— Yes, he joined me m Switzerland. Did you live with him as his wife— did you cohabit ?— Yes, m Switzerland. ' His Honor : In your affidavit you say that when your husband was . m London m 1902 there was a change m your relations ? Witness : Yes. How did that come about, and what •was it ? You had been living as ordinary married people before that 1 WHERE WERE YOU living, by the way ?— Up to that time 1 had' had rooms, but when he came to London he bought me a house at SO Park-lane, \and I have lived there ever since. \ , . . He came from Victoria ?— Yes, and joined me m Switzerland. Then we went to England. Mr McArthur : How long was he In England ? Witness : About three months. At any time while he was there did you cohabit ?— No. His Honor : The Court must have some intelligible outline of the married LIFE OF THESE PEOPLE. She says there was no change m his demeanor, and the Court must have some explanation of what she means by that— what *he change was, and why it was. I am not asking from idle curiosity. Mr McArthus : Tell us generally why your, former relationship had ceased ? Witness : I can't exactly say why. When we arrived m England he was very coid and altogether different to what ,he had been. - On two occasions I asked him to resume marital relations, and he would not. We didn't get on very well, and were always having quarrels. Did he make any COMPLAINT OF YOUR CONDUCT? —No. " Did he give any explanation of his own conduct ? — No. His Honor : In 1905 you and he • and your daughters were all living together m Park-lane. Was there any resumption of marital relations ? Witness : No. How was the house conducted then '! Had you separate ' suites of rooms? — "Yes; but he was very, seldom m the house. He was generally out, but never with me. And the servants m the house • HAD OPPORTUNITIES of observing and learning that you were not living as man and wife ?— Yes. And was there no further explanation asked by you, or offered by him ? Was it assumed, as a matter of course^ that you had ceased to be man and wife ? — He was nearly always m Australia. " But I am not now speaking of when be was m Australia. I am speaking of when you were practically one family m London. Were you then living, though m the same establishment, m such a way that anybody would know that you were quite a^part from one another ? — Yes. Was that UNUSUAL MANNER of living ever discussed between . you • and your husband ?— I asked him to come to my room, and he would not, nor would he give me any /explanation. Some years before that the ordinary relations of married people had ceased. Do you say there was no suggestion on his part that they would be resumed ?— There was not. And you merely accepted it without inquiry, and without any cause being assigned by him ?— I asked him and he said he didn't want to. We didn't get on very well— So you have NO EXPLANATION to offer ?— I didn't know 'anything about him then, .but I suppose he was living with somebody else. J You then suspected him of infidelity ?— No. That makes it all the more extraordinary if you were on good terms and didn't suspect, and no cause was assigned. Mr McArthur : Did you ask him for any explanation ? Witness : No ; I thought when he didn't want to cohabit, I wouldn't press him. I asked him twice, and he gave me no explanation. I couldn't go on pressing him. Did he blame you at all ?— Never IN ANY WAY. It was m 1907 you fir&t suspected him of adultery ?— Yes ;he said I was spending too much money, and I retorted if he could afford to buy a house for Connie Waugh and keep her, he could afford to give me the money 1 spent. We were both rather angry. I threatened to sue for a divorce, and he said, "Get a divorce." His Honor : Did he deny Connie Waugh ? Witness : No. Mr McArthur : Before you returned to Victoria this year you caused inquiries

to be made ?— Yes ; I had heard rumors of Connie Waugh. And then on your arrival you placed the matter m the hands of your proctors ? — That is so. When you returned to Melbourne where did you go to live ?— Menzies' Hotel. Did respondent live there with you 7— No ; he lived m his flat m Bank-place. Afterwards I went to "Rupertswood," and he came there for one week-end. Did you resume marital relations ?— No, we occupied separate rooms. His Honor ; There is no defence, and the adultery alleged is proved. I grant the order nisi, with costs against the respondent.

Times jnust •be 'ard, , when Bung squeals' !