SOCIETY SENSATION.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 23 July 1925, Page 7

SOCIETY SENSATION.

EX-M.P. DIVORCE SUIT-

UNPRECEDENTED STORY

UNFOLDED

By Cable—Press Association —Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. Received July 22. 5.5 p.m. LONDON, July 21. mat is described ns an unprecedented story, even for the Police C™™’ was told to-day, when Alfred Balswin Rapier (former Member of the House of Commons for East Islington), sought a divorce from his wife, who is the daughter of a ‘William Andrews Tobin, of Wingadee station, New South Wales. She divorced her first husband, the Marquess Conyngham. in 1921, and married Rapier in 1922. . , Petitioner charged respondent •with misconduct with Dan Metz. Sir Edward Marshall Hall, K.C., for Rapier, applied for a hearing in camera. ~ Mr Justice Hill, in refusing, saul though the case was odious and disgusting, he had a doubt as to the Court’s power to stop a public hearing. Sir Edward Marshall Hall said that before their marriage Rapier realised that his wife, who had a private income of £IOOO yearly, had a most violent temper, and strange eccentric ways. Just prior to marriage, a mental expert was called in, and declared that under no circumstances must the lady marry. Rapier had discovered that the real cause for her illness was alcohol, but upon her promise never to touch it again, Rapier went on yvitli the marriage. Alcohol unfortunately reappeared immediately after the honeymoon, but she- managed to continue her normal life in society. A child was born in 1923. but owing to Rapier’s membership of the House of Commons every measure was taken to prevent the domestic secret leaking out. Violent scenes occurred frequently, once after midnight, lasting three houfs. Respondent being under the influence of liquor, she broke a hand mirror over her husband’s head.' She often struck him, and once threatened him with a revolver. She also spat in his face. Petitioner was forced to leave her in 1924. She managed by subterfuge to obtain the custody of their child, to which petitioner was devoted.

Rapier filed a separation petition in September, 19 24. and respondent replied by filing a divorce petition, in which she made diabolical charges against her husband, including drunkenness, unnatural practices and gross cruelty.

Counsel suggested that the charges were invented to try to prevent the husband, owing to fear of publicity, from taking legal action to secure custody of the child. Rapier had treated the charges as a tissue of lies, due to the disordered imagination of a woman, who was not normal.

Petitioner gave evidence that there was not an atom of truth in any of liis wife’s charges. She had never once complained of any sort of linkiminess or cruelty, till she entered the cross petition. The hearing of the case was adjdurned.