HARDWICKE v. HARDWICKE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3801, 18 January 1927, Page 33

HARDWICKE v. HARDWICKE.

DECREE AGAINST THE EARL

(Fbom Oub Own Correspondent.) LONDON, November 27. No defence was offered to the petition of the Countess of Hardwicke, Queensbury place, S-W., who asked for a divorce on tiie ground of misconduct by the Earr of Hardwicke. The petition came before Mr Justice Hill in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, on November 22. In reply to her counsel, Mr Victor Ilissell (instructed by Messjs Withers, Bensons, Currie, Williams, and Co.), tho petitioner stated that her maiden name was Russell. She was married to respondent on April 27, 1911, at the parish church of St.. Peter, Pimlico. They lived together at Egerton crescent, Queensberry place, and elsewhere. They had one child, a girl, aged 14 years. ' Until the beginning of the wax the marriage wait quite happy. During the war respondent was employed at the Admiralty in London, and she had to complain of his association with other women. When she spoke to him about it he expressed regret, and promised to reform. _ She forgave him. In April, 1920, she instructed her solicitors to have, her husband watched, and on May 3, in consequence of what she heard, she left his house. On May 14 she received a letter from him as follow!^: — 'Dear Nellie, —I write Ato tell you I am leaving for America ’.on Thursday, and- do not expect to be back in England for six weeks Dr two months. v our re< lations as man and wife have been any* thing but satisfactory for many months past. I have come to this conclusion—« that I think it would be far better that, we should live apart. I think such an arrangement will be for your happiness ■and mine. Therefore I wish you to understand that- on my return from America I do not propose to resume marital life with you. lam sorry to come to this conclusion, knowing so well how good you have been to me. I hold you in no way responsible for that which has brought our affairs to thls-pass. lam to blame for everything, an< pray to God He will one day reward you for your unconscious goodness. But you may take it from me, I shall never come back.”

Petitioner said she replied: — “Dear Charlie, —I have just received your letter, which has made me very sad. I quite realise that for some time past our married life has been unsatisfactory. But on your return from America do let us try once more to resume our old hanpy relationship; if only for the sake of the child.” t ■ She again wrote asking him to think it oyer, and saying slip would be glad to get his decision, and to this respondent wrote saying that he was unable to arrive at any other conclusion. She said she was anxious tiiat he should come back, and she hoped he would reform. In the summer of 1925 she gave up hope ei his reforming, and she had him watched. She had a letter from him in July last, which was sent to her solicitors. With it was an hotel bill and a photograph of himself, but shemade no request to him for such evidence.

Evidence was given of respondent having stayed with another lady at the Imperial Hotel, Russell squrae, on the night of Jun e 19 last. A decree nisi, with costs, and the custody of tlie child were granted to petitioner, who, prior to her marriage was Miss N. Russell, daughter of the late Mr James Russell, of Auckland.