Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE ADELAIDE SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE.

The hearing of the divorce case Hall v. Hall and Wilson, which attracted such attention throughout Australia recently, came to an abrupt conclusion. The case was heard Jbefore Mr Justice Boucaut. The petitioner iwm a mining expert, whose business took fcim a good deal to Western Australia. The fact that co-respondent had been a Unitarian minister lent additional interest to it. When, We last mentioned the case the judge hatl ordered that none of the evidence should be published. This prohibition was removed after the evidence of the servants had been taken. The Chairman of the Unitarian Church Committee stated that Wilson, the corespondent, resigned his pastorate in January last, giving as iLe reason that he bad received a cablegram from a brother, \t .10 was dangerously wounded in South Afr.ca. {No each cablegram had passed through the Telegraph Office. Mac Belt, respondent's niece, stated that Wilson visited respondent about three times v week, and often remained all night. 110 once stayed about a week, during which tie was ill. Respondent nursed him. At the end of 1900 witness looked through a £mdow, and saw the respondent kiss Wilson. ftVhen taxed both called her a liar. j Lawrence, formerly respondent's gardener, cave evidence as to what had been told to him by Ethel Hioka (housemaid) and the ooaohm»n. The servants taxed Mrs Hall with impropriety, and demanded that Wilson should resign the pastorate of the Unitarian Church and leave the State, or they would inform petitioner of his wife's conduct and expose Wilson to his congregation. This resulted in several violent »cene# in the kitchen between the servants »nd respondent, whioh culminated in the latter sending for a policeman, in whose presence she. charged the servants with an it-tempt to blackmail, and dismissed them. ' Miss Belt, respondent's niece, who alleged that she saw respondent kis3 Wilson, admitted under cross-examination that cm one occasion she apologised to Wilson in writing for some tilings she had said concerning hi* relations with Mrs Hall. She believed i>bat was about two years ago. She did so Ibecause she thought she had judged them kvrongly. Witness found a sheet of blotting paper with the words " DeareSt Alexander" (upon it about three months after the family settled at Wattlobury. She showed the (taper to her aunt. When Wilson was coming to the house to dinner during the afternoon Mrs Hall suddenly intimated that her 'daughter required a pair of boots, and asked witness to go out and procure them. She refused to go out that afternoon, and remarked, "Dearest Alexander is coming." Curing the scene between Mrs Hall and the servants in the kitchen in January witness stated that Mrs Hall said, " Do you wish to part me from my husband? If you do I chall curse the day I came to Australia, and if you succeed may the cures of heaven rest upon you." The gardener replied that he would give them one chance — that was for •Wilson to T&sign his pastorate and leave the State. He further told her thai if Wilson got up to preach the following Sunday he {would denounce him, even if be had all the money in Western Australia behind him. Evidence was also given by the cook and persons who had been employed about the house as to suspicious circumstances. Mrs Hall, the respondent, gave evidence for the defence at length. She indignantly denied the allegations made against her, and declared that it was all a oonspiracy on 4he part of the servants to levy blackmail. She stated that on one occasion after her guests at a, garden party had gone sh-s found supper laid in the kitchen and the witness Mansfield there with the servants. Mansfield said: "We stuck Wileon up, and will get £50 out of him or denounce him in his church." Witness ordered Mansfield out of .the house. Lawrence then said, "We know ell about the police court case ; £150 did not g}ay for the nurse that came to Wattlebury." •Next morning Wilson told her that Mansfield and Lawrence had stuck him up at the gate of her house and demanded £50, or they would denounce him in his church for *' hi» familiarity with Mts Hall." Respondent was cross-examined at considerable length by Sir Josiah Symon. She eclared she had told her husband everything, and he was quite satisfied. She told him the servants accused her of familiarity with Wilson, but not that Wilson resigned because of the threats of the servants to expose him. She told her husband that she stayed for three nig-hts at the York Hotel Hvhen Wilson was there. She had not re eeived more than 20 notes from Wilson They were short ones. Immediately upon taking his srat on tho bench on the 25th ult., Mr Justice Boucaut »aid he could not see any conspiracy which could affect the cable messages and telegrams which had passed between respondent

} and Wilson. Those messages were the key- ' stone of petitioner's case, and he could ] not get over the effect of them in his mind. Respondent had also not acceded to the invitation to tell him what took place, but carried the war into the petitioner's camp. : Mr Piper, who appeared for respondent, said, in reply to a question, that he could not call evidence beyond that of respondent to clear up certain points. After some argument and a conference, counsel said the only evidence beyond co-respondent's denial of everything that was alleged that he could call would be evidence to show conclusively that on the night of the dog incident (January 6) the story told cannot be proved. Th-ere were fhf witnesses to prove that the person could by no possibility have been there at that time. Beyond that, ho did not think there was any other evidence of much importance on behalf of Mr Wilson. As for J the cable mes?ages and telegrams, he did J not know that, by elaboration, foe could put the explanation of them in a very 1 much different form. I In delivering judgment, his Honor said . he was guided by the 'statement of Lord Stawcll, who was perhaps the greatest jurist in the world, that if two persons adopt puch a course to one another that those ' about them consider if they had the oppor- j ■ tunity they would commit adultery, the ■ crurt ought, if they had had that opportu- ! nity, to deduce a judgment that the adul- j 5 fry was proved. Another judge had | i pointed out that it was a mistaken notion ' ! *n ronsidor that adultery roust be proved. .U could not be proved. All that could be ]>ro\ ed vas conduct such a« would lead com-luo-i perse jo ihp conclusion that adultery, had I<ecn committed. There \nis a clear ' <''e;non=fcrafion ot conspiracy between Mans- j field and I/awrence to make money oirt of > I the unfortunate woman. They knew what | had taken place, and thought they would get blood money or blackmail. He would not hang a mad dog on the testimony of these men. They hunted the unfortunate lady day after day, and it was ridiculous to I J tell him that those men were not after lucre. ! J The action of "Lawrence in getting behind , a chair and trying to terrify respondent ' made him fit to be put on the triangles, i He had no doubt that the words [ " Dearest Alexander," discovered by re- ! fipondent's niece, Miss Belt, had been written | j by respondent, and referred to co-respond- ' cnt. Miss Belt evidently imputed impro1 prietary at that tim,?, and warned her aunt. ' ( It was only human nature that the servants should watch, and their masters and misI tresses should not condiict themselves in a I manner which would encourage them to Ido &o. If Wilson were innocent when he •was accused by servants he would have faced the charge; but he had fled from ihi 3 church and the State. R^f-pondf-ut J arranged before Wilson left to write him 1 if she succeeded in blinding her husband. ( , It was improper conduct on Wilson's part ' to send telegrams to a married woman. When he returned he received money from ' 1 respondent. It was improper, censurable, ! , and wicked for a married woman with a ] family — a daughter 17 years old — to stay * "with a single man at a hotel. They were wandering about together at Poit Victor. Then there was the euchre party. Iv re- , spect to that nearly admitted guilt she [ said, "I won't 6wear that Wilson did not j sleep at the Avenue that night." It was j almost impossible for the court to resist | the suggestion. His Honor, in eonc'udiiig 1 judgment, said he would report to the Full ! Court on Tuesday that the allegations had j been proved. He wou.d certify that the i case should have lasted 12 days only. On the follow ins? da}', in the Full Court, Mr Justice Boucaut reported that the allegations had been proved. Sir J. Symon, in moving for a decree nisi and costs, said : I also ask for an ord*>r for costs against the respondent Mrs HaH. She has a properly known as "The Avenue," valued at £2500, and also 100 I\auhoe shares, valued at £1600, which were purchased with the petitioner's money. My j instructions are to say that the petitioner is perfectly willing that the property shall be settled on the respondent for her life, «=o long as the children of the present marriage have it afterwards. That being done, he will abandon the order for costs against j her. The Ivanhoe shares bring in about £120 a year. . j The Chief Justice: The application is | granted. We make an order for costs j against the co-respondent, and also against respondent, subject to the intimation Sir .Tosiah Symon has made. It appears to me that the petitioner is taking a generous and humane position. He does not wish to fee hi% wife turned homeless on the world, and so gives her this property to live , upon.

I i The Norfolk, vrh'cli sailed from the Bluff , on Wednesday for Sydney, took 4433 car- | cases of mutton and lambs and 3000 live sa°ep. The TCorth Otafro (roY Club will be Tepre- ' sorted in i^p golf to'.imrmeT.t at lJunedin next work V>" M'P Buckley, and Misses Gould, Christie, and Praser. j Official denial is privon to the report tliat ' there is so much black damp in the Blackball coal mine 23 to neceg-=itat<f» stoppage of work in som» of the tunnels. The Inspector of Mines in Westland states that the mine 13 frequently examined by him and his as=i- f a^t, and black damp ha* only been ( found ia on© part

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW19020917.2.93

Bibliographic details

Otago Witness, Issue 2631, 17 September 1902, Page 30

Word Count
1,786

THE ADELAIDE SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE. Otago Witness, Issue 2631, 17 September 1902, Page 30

THE ADELAIDE SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE. Otago Witness, Issue 2631, 17 September 1902, Page 30

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert