DIVORCE EXTRAORDINARY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19366, 24 July 1925, Page 11

DIVORCE EXTRAORDINARY

ECCENTRIC WOMAN’S WAYS AN UNPRECEDENTED STORY LONDON, July 22. What is described as an unprecedented story even for tho Divorce Court was told to-day, when Alfred Baldwin Raper, a former member of the House of Commons for East Islington, sought a divorce from his wife, who is a daughter of Mr William Andrews Tobin, of Wingadce Station, New South Wales. She divorced her first husband, the Marquis Conyngham, in 1921, and married Raper in 1922. Petitioner charges respondent with misconduct with Dan Metz.

Sir Marshall Hall, for Raper, applied for a hearing in camera. Mr Justice Hill, in refusing, said though the case was odious and disgusting, he had doubt as to the Court’s power to stop a public hearing. Sir Marshall Hall said that before his marriage Raper realised that his wife, who has a private income of £lOOO, had a most violent temper, and strange eccentric ways. Just prior to tlie marriage a mental expert was called in, and declared that under no circumstances must the lady marry. Raper had discovered that the real ch use of her illness was alcohol, but upon her promise never to touch it again Raper went on with tho marriage. Alcohol unfortunately reappeared immediately after the honeymoon, but she managed to continue normal life in society. A child whs born in 1923. Owing to Raper’s membership of the House of Commons, every measure was taken to prevent the unfortunate domestic secret leaking out. Violent scenes occurred frequently. Once, after midnight, there was a row lasting three hours, the respondent being under the influence of liquor, and 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. The petitioner was forced to leave her in 1924. She manhged, by subterfuge, to obtain the custody of the child, to which the petitioner was devoted. Raper filed a separation petition in September, 1924, 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 the charges were invented to try to prevent her husband, owing to his fear of publicity, from .taking legal action to secure the custody of the child. Rlaper had treated the charges as a tissue of lies due to the disordered imagination of the woman, who was not normal.

Tho petitioner gave evidence that there was not an atom of truth in any of his wife’s charges. She never once complained of any sort of unkindness or cruelty till she entered the cross petition. The hearing was adjourned.