GILDED “POVERTY”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8342, 31 January 1913, Page 2

GILDED “POVERTY”

FINANCIER’S WIFE COMPLAINS OF

THE BOOKERS.

LIFE IN A PARK LANE FLAT,

SOCIETY SIDELIGHTS DISCLOSED

IX COURT

LONDON, December 22. Impeeuniositv amid the gilded luxury of a Park luiie flat, an extravagantly appointed establishment in. which the furniture alone was estimated to be worth some .£6OOO. seems strangely incongruous. Yet such was the tale of woe unfolded by the wife of a wealthy financier, who sued her husband, from whom she was living apart, in the High Court, complaining that she had had to pay the brokers out of the flat. The action disclosed some piquant sidelights of society life, to which it was hinted there may bo a sequel in the Divorce Court. The plaintiff was Mrs Elizabeth Agnes Hobson, of Park-lone, W„ and she sued her husband, Mr Clement Hobson, of Albemarle street, W., for <£62 in respect of alleged arrears of allowance, alul J&SSI, three quarters’ rent of her flat. Defendant pleaded, in the first place, that the agreement sued upon was a voluntary one, and, iu the second, that if it was not voluntary plaintiff was not entitled to sue upon it by reason of her behaviour.

The parties, .said Mr -Posc-Innes, K.C., representing Mrs Hobson, were married about ten years ago, but in . December, 1910, the husband left his wife, and on the 29th of that, month, wrote to her: — My dear Lil, —I have not written you ■‘before as I wanted to turn matters carefully over in my mind. Unless, of course, you .have changed your mind about divorcing me, the following is what 1 will do: Allow you .£6OO a year, payable at the rate of Jsili'per week, and the flat, the rent of which is JCiSO a year. For the present you can also have the use of one motor, and I will pay the expenses, which you know are not light.. I do not wish to remove a single piece of furniture from the fiat. The only condition I make is that X have my clothes, cigars, photographs, racing.cups, and small personal articles. I should like my. books, but do not insist. You can retain the furniture, wine, and plate in. return. 1 want peaceable possession of -the cottage (at Maidenhead), where I jiropcse going to live. X should Also have to make it a condition that you don’t get into debt. If yon want extra money . at any time, and I have it, I will give

it to you. Upon receipt of that letter, continued, counsel, plaintiff rang her husband up on the telephone and discussed matters <ith him. She asked him to come hack to her, but he said that that was impossible, as he wished to live apart. She -said that if that was his determination she accepted the terms contained in his letter. His Lordship would find that defendant laid acted in accordance with the terms in the letter up to a comparatively recent date, when he not only reduced his wife’s allowance to £lO per week, hut left her to pay fho rent of the flat in addition. Mrs Hobson said that in December of 1910 she aild her husband had certain differences, and he left her. Mr Hogg; Was there some question about another soman? Yes. Witness, continuing, Said that when she got her husband's letter of December 29th ehe was very much upset, because until then she did not think he had left her for good. She accordingly telephoned to her husband and implored him to come back to her. He, however, refused to do so. He said he was madly in love with another woman. Mr Hogg: Ido not want you to go into the reason, but was any arrangement ’come to? 1 accepted the terms in his letter. Witness said that her husband had everything he asked for in his letter. He commenced to pay her £l2 per week, but in March last he reduced it to £lO. In consequence of his neglecting to pay the rent of the fiat the brokers came in, and she had to pay them out. - She had been served with papers in a divorce suit at the instance of her husband. .£IO,OOO A YEAR SUGGESTED. Cross-examined by Mr Uealy, witness said that - er husband made about £1(1,000 a year, and shb thought he ought to allow her at least £IOOO a year.—is it not right that your husband only left you when you had been out several nights and refused to give him any ex- & lunation? That is wholly untriie; 1 had eon to my mother’s.—Your husband had given you enormously valuable, jewels? I os.—And always behaved towards von in the most generous manner? Quite. — And he has been driven, as we know, to take divorce proceedings against you? Not driven. Mr Rose-lnnes: Is it right you refused to give your husband any kind of information where you'went to? No. Mr Healy: Are you aware that the rent you are claiming has been paid by your husband? Then why did they put the brokers in on me? Have you not had enormous sums of money? I have not had it without pawning my jewels.—You do not pretend it was for necessaries that you pawned your jewels? No. Mr Healy, on behalf of defendant, said that Mr Hobson left his wife on Christmas Eve. .Subsequently she tent him a Chrsitnias meta-age. He did not get it at once, and in the fulness of his heart he wrote the letter of December 29th. Counsel suggested that neither of the parties looked upon the letter as a contract. Defendant said he left his wife because of her unexplained absence for two nights. The pearl necklace which his wife pawned was worth about .£3OOO. Tho furniture in the fiat was worth about .£SOOO or .EGOOO. Mr Healy: AVill you say why you reduced the weekly amount to .£10? Because of the dissolute life and tho wasteful way ehe was using her money; gambling and so on. Cross-ex-amined by Mr Kose-lnnes. witness said ho was a land surveyor and financier. You say you reduced the allowance because she was gambling her money away? Yes, and other things.—Was there any other reason? Yes, she was receiving money from other men. — Has she Arrectly estimated your income at something like £IO,OOO a vear? No; 1 should not think anything like it.

You had been and are extremely fond of the lady? I am not now.—When did you cease to be fond of her? I had an aßeclion for her even after I deft her.— About December, 1910? No, I was still

fond of her. as my act shows in making her such an allowance. —Did she complain of vour conduct with a trench < halvr No—You were anxious to tw divbi-cedr Vo. Witness said that in his view the letter was not a contract. 11 is Lordship .-aid his view wn> that tint . loiter of December -IHh was not intended ito be an offer, and was not accepted or understood as such. Therefore the claim tailed. Judgment was accordingly entered for defendant, with costs.