THE EUSTON DIVORCE CASE.
The following is from the Anglo-Colonial ; Tiondon better of the South Australian Ad■e vertieer m Lord Easton, when as yet he was Colonel a . Fitzroy,'was so well known in South Aus■B trail a that there must still he many friends ,| of his in the Colony who Will* regret to n, learn that the long and persistent efforts n made to release Him from a sad entanglement 1, into which he fell- while in yontfa, have e Anally resulted in disappointment. The nature of the blight bn Lord Easton’s life is it so. generally known that there eau be no ). breach of delicacy in relating the story of 9| the struggles engaged in to free him from it, t, and in describing the manner of their frua I, tratinn,' The melancholy issue is now an n open secret, and the details have come to d me on unimpeachable authority, g 'The young officer ha • barely attained his ,f majority when in a reckless hoar he married rt a woman who' balled herself Kate Cook. ,f Her real name was Kate Walsh, and she a was known as Cook because of a connection r with a circus proprietor of that name. All e her antecedents were deplorably bad, but r she was a woman of considerable facination, d although course and uneducated. The late d Duke of Grafton began the proceedings, e which have been going on almost without y any cessation ever since, with intent to set i, i the young relative fee who ultimately in ,f the course of natnre would {succeed to his g title. The inquiry was entrusted Co a e 1 London solicitor, who has a deserved repu8, tation lor acumen and perseverance. There Y was little difficulty in discovering that before t h>T marriage with Fitzray Kate Cook hail e been married to one George Manley Smith, a This she did not deny. George Manley y Smith, her husband, she averred, had t perished inth- wreck of a steamer prior to ( her marriage Fitzroy Inquiry showed that among the lost in this shipwreck was un’l donbtedly one “George M. Smith.” But t after protracted investigation the lawyer una earthed the circumstance that the name of the lost man was not “George Manley y Smith,” but “ George Mssselyn Smith, i “ He was my hnsband all the same,” con t tended the lady, This, however, the laws ! yer would not accept as a fact, and be purf sued his investigations. A streak of good \ fortune encouraged him. A Glasgow merl cantile firm was found to have had in their } employ at a date subsequent to the Fi'zrny j marriage a “ George Manley Smith,” whom 3 careful collection of evidence proved to be 3 the earlier husband of Kate Cook. But ~ again the cun ent “went to earth.” The p “ George Manley Smith” of the Glasgow E 1 house bad been employed as a commercial 3 I traveller. He disappeared during his first . journey in that capacity, and although the I firm had reasons for finding him, they never s succeeded in finding him. The lawyer was no more fortunate, and he a 1 but dispaired. , But an expedient occurred to him. In ( Somerset Honse he found the record of > James Manley Smith’s babtismal register, which specified that interesting person’s . mother’s maiden name as “ Jane Lippuck.” [ He f ound that Lippuck was a Derbyshire , name, and he visited the Peak country on a tour of discovery. He was fortunate. He | discovered the widow Smith, born Jane E Lippuck. Yes, her gcrapegrace son was ; alive and in Australia, and doing no good, , she feared. He had written - to her for . money, and his last letter was in an as ; snmed nama She gave sufficient clue to justify the lawyer In 'sending out a smart i man to Austr H i to ferret out Smith, and persuade him to come to England and prove .himself alive. The search was a long and , arduous one but ultimately successful- I believg-it was on the West Coast of the Middle Island of-New Zealand where Mr .Smith was run to earth, Perhaps he had not known how important a person he was ; perhaps he had reasons of his own for “lying 1 low.” Anyhow, he finally consented to go home and test fy. It was, understood that he had made another local matrimonial ar--1 rangeraent, and a stipend had to be secured 1 to the Colonial lady during his ahaenne in 1 Europe. In the early part of Decern her 18S2 I happened to ynysge from Melbourne to Adelaide on bharii the P. and (), steamer—lf I remember tightly, theßohilla. On board of this ship George Manley Smith, the all important witness, was a second class passenger. But his guardian • the emissary who had found him and had charge of him—had contrived to have himself left behind in Melbourne. In his absence #ll that had been gained might be lost. Influence was set to work. A telegram from the P and O. Melbourne agency authorised the Adelaide agents to detain the mail steamer at the Semaphore until the arrival of the Yiotorian on th« following morning with the laggard detective. He was duly transhipped at 5 o’clock the following morning, and then the mail steamer carried him and his change to England. Now at length there seemed a decisive break in the cloud. It became currently reported that Lord Euston was likely to find himself a free man, and scheming mothers by no meins ignored the report. Proceedings in the Divorce Court to annul the marriage were duly initiated. , Mr Smith, by arrangement was permitted to see the lady, and duly identified her as the person whom he had married years before. Of her something must be said. She had been living for many years under the protection of a M r Haughton, a 1 well-known bookmaker. She has grown stout and pursy, and has certainly .lost none of her original vulgarity. She is ironically known as ‘ Lady Euston Square’; hut she really does call herself ‘Lady 1 Euston,’ and what manner of person she is 1 may he gathered from the circumstance that. last year she signed herself m the register at Monte Carlo as ‘ Euston,’ wiih» but the formality of a Christian name. The 1 case was expected to come on last term. But the other side—the “ Mr Haughton ” , side —applied for a postponement, and a# the Euston side were not quite ready, this was not opposed. Mr Smith had been very troublesome during his stay in EnglandHe had come to know his value, and presume upon it. But there were his affidavits, and confidence was felt that the long game was as good as won. But that result ; was not to be attained. As the present term drew near the Haughton lawyer fired a 1 bombshell that shattered the whole pain-fully-built-un fabric. A pleading was put in to the effect that Mr. George Manley Smith was already a married man, with a live wife extant, when he went through the form of marriage with Kate Cook, and that therefore the latter marriage was no marriage at all . If this were true, the bottom had fallen out of the Euston case, its argument being that Kate Cook’s marriage with Colonel Fitzioy was no marriage, seeing that she had previously contracted a valid marriage with George Manley Smith, who was alive when she and Fitzroy joined hands, and it turned out to be true. The Haughton faction had got at Smith, and he had obliged them with the confession of a little circumstance which he had previously kept to himself. He had married, prior to his marriage with Kate Cook, a certain wi 'ow Smith, who is now dead, but was not dead at the date of latter nuptials. The Euston lawyer has investigated the evidence of his final coup, and finds it irrefragible. There were hopes that as the Haughton people 1 had sprung the mine of a previous marriage on the Euston side the latter might retaliate hjr going yet another step fdrthe back, and -discovering that the “widow Smith’s” marriage. -with George Manley Smith was
nvdid because of 'previous lias contaoto I by that ladv ; but her record-proves ini menu late. The long; game »hen has hern played out, and .has been lost. If l/ir-l Euston lives, and Kate Cook . ivea Kite Cook must be Duchess of Gra toe. People will understand why the conditions of her present life cannot be used by her unfortunate husband in the direction of procuring a divorce. Money offers have Imen sunken of to tempt; her to refrain from ouposing a dissolution of the tie. But she does not want money, and she does want to be Duchess of Grafton. Her health is said to be serioasly impaired.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DUNST18840425.2.9
Bibliographic details
Dunstan Times, Issue 1156, 25 April 1884, Page 3
Word Count
1,476THE EUSTON DIVORCE CASE. Dunstan Times, Issue 1156, 25 April 1884, Page 3
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.