A SENSATIONAL CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2664, 5 April 1905, Page 19

A SENSATIONAL CASE.

SWAIN v. GARDNER

LONDON, April 1. The court decided that Came Swain was not Gardner's wife, and mulcted hei m i:ine-tenths of ihe costs of the ensc.

The paruce to the ca=e will be remembered by theatre-goers, Carrie Swam touring the rolonies as a star in tomboy characters, while Gardner was her manager. Airs Carrie Gardner, known on <he st&o- e ~ & s Carrie. Swain, sought in tho First C'Vu Chamber, Paris, to establish the validity of her marriage with Frank Gardner, or in default to compel him to pay her £40,000 as. compensation. The theatrical tour of Air s Carrie Gardner, with Mr Frank Gardner as her manager, resulted in box office receipts amounting to £20,000. which, by contract, they shared between them. During* their tour the late Sir Arthur Sullivan is •said to have offered Mrs Carrie Gardner £100 a week if she would play in one of his operettas. Afterwards the couple invested in silver name**, and made between £20,000 and £30,000. All this money, it was alleged, came from the earnings of Sirs Came Gardner, which formed fche nucleus of Mr Gai'dner's fortune. When the case came before the court in January last M. Labori, the celebrated advocate of Dreyfus, who appeared For plaintiff, said that all went well with the parties until Mrs Carrie Gardner met a Frenchwoman named Leglay at lime. Marches' 's. She invited her to \isii her and ~Mv Frank Gardner, and it was not long before Mme. Leglay and the American millionaire were on the most intimate terms. Mrs Carrie Gardner, however, suspected nothing until one day she found in Mr Frank Gardner's pocket a medallion portrait of Mme. Lesjlay and a look of hair. She at .once drove off to ask for explanations from her friend, but, Mme. Leglay assured her that her suspicions Avere totally unfounded, as there was not the slightest grounds for the supposition that she and Mr Frank Gardner were unduly intimate. On her return home Mrs Carrie Gardner was so convinced that Mme. Leglay had told her the truth that she wrote an apology, asking her to excuse her for har-^ bouring unjust suspicions. Next day, however, she surprised her husband at the moment when he- was writing a telegram addressed to 59 Avenue Kleber, the address of Mme. Leglay. From that moment, said M. Labori, the. one de=ire of Mr Frank Gardner was to get rid r.i Mrs Carrie Gardner. So he frightened her with a story )o the effect that a woman named Annie Graham, with whom he had at one time contracted marriage, wa,s about to bring an action for bigamy against him, and in order to clear the way and prevent a scandal he induced Mrs Carrie Gardner to assist him in obtaining a divorce from her. promising her that as soon as that was accomplished, and Annie Graham was disposed of, he would remarry her. Tho plaintiff, believing that her husband was sincere in his statements, left Paris, but while on the Riviera she read in a newspaper an intimation of rlv* approaching marriage of Mr Frank GaiJnr-y with Mme. Lcslay. She immediately leit for London, and '-aw Mr Frank Gardner, but ho c'rM-iicil his approaching marriage. On C'hnsrmas Day. 1901. however, she rcci»nod a rc.iincalo of divorce between lit and th j ile""-oi:'Unt, Liv, said M. Labori. (I],^ mh-. !> tal-ifiocl document, the date and n unc luvwi boon altered. On February 2, 1902. I\lino/Lop'ny and Mr Frank Gardnc vwi<» nwniPii m London, and just before -the CMrmony Mr Gardner wrote to Mrs Carrio Giirdwv refciriiig to his "deplorable past," pml adding, " May GorT blo-s you and par-ilou-w." 110--i<<t(Ml that his efforts to lieep tho nowpap-ers. uuiot had only been paxfiallv si-'cco-sfu'. and be mentioned that lie hid -enr £200 to the Herald's M'Kinloy Fund, presumably 1o -^ilenro the American colony in Paris. Mr Frank Gardner afterwards piomisod tvi make an nllowanco of £200 a month to Mrs Carrie Gardner, but as the end of tho year ho ceased to do so.