DIVORCE IN HIGH LIFE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2956, 15 September 1882, Page 3

DIVORCE IN HIGH LIFE.

ODRIOUB REVELATIONS. The divorce case, Claudet -v. Claudet Armstrong, fief ton, Lavignino, and Parry •was recently heard in the London Divorce Court. It was a suit of a Remarkable character. The petition was vthat of the husband, a metallurgist, for ca divorce by reason of his wife a ■ -adultery with the four correspondents, ‘one of'whom is Sir Alexander Arm- . strong, K.C.8., who is connected with ' ! the medical department of the navy. Answers were filed denying the charge, ■ and Sir Alexander Armstrong pleaded condonation. In opening the case, Mr . Inderwick said the petitioner, Mr Fredk, Claudet, resided at 10, Oak Tark, Hampstead, He married, on the Slat of August, 1854, the respondent, .Mary Harriet Stone, who was the daughter of "banker, of Lombard street. She was an attractive person, and her husband was very well off. The question raised Siv Sir A. Armstrong was as to _whether the husband had condoned his wife s offence. He also pleaded the old plea that the question of his alleged adultery W been referred to a third person, who found that the respondent bad not misconducted herself, and that consequently SfJ award absolved him from these I- 1863 W"" 4 *» m J e the acquaintance of Dr Armstrong at the A of Wight. In

und that was the beginning of the unhappiness between himself and the respondent. Correspondence Appears td v -bare'''b#btt"'dafid^-bn i: bj means of a private stationer in Vigo .nreet. About that time Dr Armstrong was knighted and mad® a The learned counsel then read a number of letters bearing on the case. Ultimately the whole matter "of Mrs Claudets alleged misconduct was 'referred to Captain Bedford Pirn, with the result y|hich has been stated. Mr and Mrs Cllaudct afterwards went abroad ‘His LbrdsWp said that; from looking at the pleading, it appeared to him to be a detailed plea of condonation.—Mr Inderwick, in continuing hw said that the evidence would be that Sir Alexander Armstrong was continually at the house, and with the respondent,; .under suspicious circumstances, and also with the othercorrespondents. Mr Louis Selton was tf singer, Colonel Parry belonged to the Royal Horse Artillery, and Lavagmnq was a singer. Mr Frederick Claudetj the petitioner, was called. He said there were five children of the marriage, all of whom were now over 16. After he siiw the, letter referred to, his' wife promised to give up all farther inti-; macy with Sir Alexander Armstrong. Be was introduced, to Sir Alexander at tile. Exhibition in 1862 by his wife He received an anonymous letter warning him as to his wife’s conduct. He had consulted counsel as to the advisability Of prosecuting Sir Alexander Armstrong for libel, and ultimately tho matter was referred to Captain Bed* ford Pirn in respect to the letters he had written., Witness believed that Sir Alexander was libelling' ... his wife. Mr Bayford, on behalf of the wife, said that he had road through the whole of the letters, and he could not defend the case in its entirety. Crossexamined by Mr Willis,, Q.oj—His Wife told him that she had been the mistress of Sir Alexander Armstrong 1 for 15 years. He suspected her in 1865, but had no proofs. She wrote to him In 1866 that ' she had not wronged him. Evidence was then given by a coachman that the respondent was, driven to, the Albany, where Sir Alexander: Armstrong lived, and that she had driven out with the other corespendents. Evidence was also given of the visits of some of the co-respondents, to the house during the absence of the, petitioner. For the defence, Sir Alex. Armstrong was called—He said that be first made the-acquaintance of the respondent in 1862, in the Isle of Wight.. She was a very accomplished woman, and a very good artist, and he accompanied her to a number of picture galleries. She came to his chambers at the. Albany, accompanied by her daughter. Once he accompanied her , home to Hempstead. He a! ways entertained great affection for her, and they ultimately agreed,in the event of anything happening to the petitioner, that he would marry her. He denied that he, wrote the anonymous letters to which reference had been made, and : he also denied that at, any time there had ever been any improper intimacy with the respondent; The jury found that the respondent had committed adultery with all the co-respondents, and the petitioner had not condoned the effence. His Lordship granted a deoree TiMt, with costs. ,