SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16986, 9 March 1923, Page 3

SOCIETY DIVORCE CASE.

THE RUSSELL PETITION. LONDON, March fi. In the Russell divorce suit, a housemaid. at Mayor’s flat gav* that %he had seen Mrs Rusaatt tJheru dv j or six times, and recognised her photographs in Mayer’s room. Another valet said he had seen Mrs Ru->--sell there more than ten times. Mayer had given instructions that he should not be disturbed while she was there. A housekeeper stated that Mayer’s visitors were always ladies. She had -seen three, but Airs Russell most frequently. Lady Ampthill said *die first knew of the wedding date on the wedding morning. She opposed the marriage because of her son’s ago. but was anxious after wards to he friendly, and had presented Mrs Russell at Court in 1919. She noticed in December. 1920, that the wife was not wearing her wedding ring, and as a result ot a visit to her by Alt* Russell witness conversed with the vile. “ 1 asked her why she did not keep :>» the oath taken before God. and she replied. ‘ I have not lived with your as .a wife, and do not intend to do so. ’ Witness produced photographs of her son when he was an infant, and sai-l she could not see anv similaritv to Mrs Russell's baby. The Judge, in passing the photograph to the jury, said : “ If you are of mv mind, you will not attach any importance to the similarity or dissimilarity.” Lord Ampthill said he was not a verv rich man. and had to borrow on his interest in family estate* and jieisoual insurances in order to finance the presentand the previous lawsuits. It would ultimate!v come from his son’s pocket. Tut meanwhile it meant practically ruin to witness. The petitioner's case lias closed.