£1000 DIVORCE DAMAGES

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14842, 6 December 1913, Page 2

£1000 DIVORCE DAMAGES

CO-RESPONDENT OF SIXTY-EIGHT. A NEW ZEALANDER'S ADVENTURE. (FROM OtTO OWN CORRKSrSNDENT). LONDON, October 29. How a young wife of twenty-five was fascinated by a man of sixty-eight was related in the Divorce Court yesterday, when Mr C. Costenoble, a hairdresser, of Southampton street, Russell Square, was granted a dissolution of his marriage with his wife on aoccmnt of her misconduct with Mr William Joseph Cloudesley, who represents New Zealand interests in this country. Neither the respondent nor the corespondent appeared.

Mr Barnard, .K.C., said that th«marriage took place on November 3rd, 1908, at the St. Giles Registry Office, both husband and wife being then only twenty-one years of age. The petitioner and his wife lived in Acton street, King's Cross, and Claremont Square, London, and there was one child. The petitioner earned on business in Southampton Row, and the corespondent, a man of 68 years of age, used to be a customer, and whenever he , came ny from Cardiff he always stayed at a ooardinghoiiee in the neighbourhood. Iα order, to improve their position the- petitioner and his wife took, in 1912, a boardinghouse in Claremont Square, and the co-respondent, knowing something of New Zealand, was invited to the petitioner's house, where there was staying a man who wished to go to that country. Cloude,sley was also introduced- at that?, time to the respondent. Up to this time she young husband and wife had lived happily, but in August, 1912, Mr Costenoble was surprised to see his wife walking with his old customer near St. Pancras Church. When he epoke to his wife about it she became very angry, and practically locked him out of the house. She said that she should do as she liked. In the meantime, the co-respondent had gone to New Zealand. One day in January the petitioner went home and found his wifo there with her brothers, but in consequence of what took place the petitioner went and lived elsewhere. Later on ho met his wife in the street, and for the sake of the child, and on her promise to have nothing more to do with the co-respondent the petitioner took her back. After a week, however, ehe went away, saying that she was not going to live with her husband again. The reason was, said counsel, that the co-respondent had come back. After the-wife went away the petitioner, searching among some papers, found a letter to her from the co-respondent, dated from Fremantle, saying:—"My dear wife, —Just a few lines to let you know I am in the land of the living, my dear and hoping you are quite well and happy. I know you will be waiting for my return, and I hope everything will bo all right. If so, I will be back at the end of February, and I hope I shall have a letter waiting for mc at Chrietchurch (New Zealand). It does eeem each & long time since I heard of or saw you. I hope things are going on all right my eweetheart. I hope you have taken , great care of yourself and are not making yourself miserable. I hope you will-have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year,—From.your loving husband, —W. J. Cloudesley." The next petitioner saw of his wife was on April 11th of this year. Ho was sheltering from the rain in Tottenham. Court road when he caw Mrs Costenoble and Cloudesley pass in a motor-omnibus. The petitioner followed and traced.the couple to a boardinjjhouso.in Woburn Place. The corespondent went in, leaving the woman, outside. After a while the co-respond-ent came out, and signalling to Mjre Costenoble they - both entered the house.

After waiting outside for threequarters of an hour, Mr Costenoble knocked at the door and asked for Mr Cloudesley. The landlady took him upstairs to a room, and after knocking two or three times the door was opened by Cloudesloy, who was undressed.

, Petitioner said: <( Mr Clondesley, I saw you come into this house with my wife." This the co-respondent denied. Mr Costenoble, however, pushed open the door, and fonnd his wife hiding under the bed. When she crawled out the landlady gave her five minutes to leave the house, and told Mr Cloudesley she was surprised that he, as a married man, should be guilty of such conduct.

"J have never heard of anything to equal the impudence of the co-respond-ent," eaid Mr Barnard, "for after these occurrences he went to Sir Costenoble's shop as usual to got shaved."

The Jndge, summing up to the jury, said that it was a very bad case, because this old man had been introduced as a friend and had ruined the home of a young couple. The jury assessed the damages at £1000. The judge granted a decree nisi with costs, tho damages to be paid into Court within fourteen days.