SYDNEY DIVORCE SUIT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22422, 17 November 1934, Page 14

SYDNEY DIVORCE SUIT

ENDED BY TRAGEDY iFaou Our Own Correspondent.' SYDNEY, November 8. In tragic 'circumstances Sydney has been robbed of the pleasure it might have derived of listening to the details of a divorce suit in which many well known society figures were prominent. The case was one in which George Chapman, a retired grazier of Darling Point, Sydney, sought a divorce from his wife, Amy Frances Chapman, on the ground of misconduct with Robert Atlee Hunt, Lieutenant-commander Royal Australian Navy, and David Pittendrigh, a merchant, of Sydney. The wife and the co-respondent had denied the allegations made against them, and when the case was opened last week an unsuccessful attempt was made to secure an adjournment of the hearing on account of the ill-health of Mrs Chapman. The stage was set for the taking of evidence on Monday morning, and the court was crowded, but as soon as the judge entered he was informed that Mrs Chapman had died it/ a private hospital Mrs Chapman was only 33 years of age, and when the divorce proceedings were begun she wrote to her baby’s nurse: “ I don’t think I shall live to see it through.” Mrs Chapman became ill on Saturday, and was taken to a private hospital. Death occurred soon after she had been admitted. The police do not suspect foul play, but point out that there is at least one strange feature associated with her death. Doctors and the police, are convinced that .Mrs Chapman died from some poisoning, yet, despite the most thorough search no poison was found in her richly appointed home. A nurse found some white powder on the carpet in Mrs Chapman’s bedroom, and this she carefully swept into an envelope, which she gave to the police. The nature of the powder has not yet been ascertained, hut it is known that Mrs Chapman had been taking sleeping powders under the direction of her doctor. She had been in a nervous condition for some time. A post mortem examination was conducted by the Government medical officer, hut this did not reveal the cause of M-s Chapman’s death. Accordingly certain anatomical exhibits have been forwarded to the Government analyst. When the formal announcement of Mrs Chapman’s death was made in the divorce court, a legal point was raised whether the suit entirely abated or whether it was competent for action still to lie taken against the co-respon-dents, from whom damages were claimed. Counsel said it was clear that the suit abated in some respects, but whether it abated against the co-respondents was a point on which he was not satisfied. In England it was held not to abate, hut the wording of the section in Australia was quite different. After a brief adinurnment to enable counsel to confer the judge quickly settled any argument there might have been by saying: “I can make no order of any kind. The suit is over.”