SOCIETY DIVORCE SUIT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 161, 2 August 1909, Page 1

SOCIETY DIVORCE SUIT

SIE RUi'EiiT A.ND LADV CLARKE. LADY I'LAKKE THE PKTITIOXJiIt. Melbourne, July 14. I (Proceedings for divorce which will no doubt awake-,i considerable interest in society circles have been commenced in Melbourne. Lady Clarke has liled n petition for dissolution of her marriage with Sir Kupert Clarke. The grounds arc repealed acts of miseonduei with one Connie Waugh. The suit will probably come on for hearing at the sittings of tho Divorce Court to be held in Melbourne ; next month. !

I 111 an affidavit verifying tho petition I special allegations are made. Amy ! Mary Clarke, of Mitford, Toorak-roaJ, i Toorak, states she is of the age of 42 years, and was born at Stony Point Station, near Darlington, hi the western district. Respondent, Rupert Tamer llavolock Clarke, is of the age of 44 years, and was born at '"Rupertswood," near Sunuury, Victoria. The marriage took place on 22nd*December, 1880, at the Scots Church, Melbourne, by Rev. J. Jj\ Ewing, according to the rites of the Presbyterian Church, There arc of the marriage two children—Phyllis Mary Clarke (now Phyllis Mary Power), who was born at Brighton, England, and is 21 years of age, and Aimec Glendolyn Clarke, born at Toorak, and now 14 years of age. Petitioner, in setting out the grounds for her divorce, after giving particulars of her visits to England, the Continent, India, and Japan, in the early years of her marriage, declares: "About the end of 1902 respondent returned to Victoria, and I remained in London with our two children. During the visit of respondent to London he bought a. house for mc in my own name in Park-lane, London, which has ever since been the place of residence of myself and my children when in London. There has been no cohabitation between us since the last visit of respondent to Ldadon in 1902. I'rior to respondent leaving England for | Victoria in 1002 I observed that his ' manner was very cold and indifferent towards me. Respondent m'ade no complaint against me of any kind, and T was always willing to do my. duty towards him. 1 now believe that h is'coldness and indilfurciicc were duo to tlio fact that he had improper relations with one Connie Waugh."

Proceeding with her statement, jiel.itiouer says: "About September, 1004, 1 came out to Victoria to be present at tlic marriage of my sister, [earing niy Iwo children in London, I remained' i" Victoria for about six weeks. I stayed during practically the whole of that time at "liupcrtswood" with respondeat.. "About Xovember of the same year 1 returned to London, and in 1!)05 respondent came to London and lived with me and my two children, principally at Park-lane, and during this visit lie bought uie a collage in the country, at t'arnham Common, ]iucks, which' has been used by me and iiiv children as a country residence when in England, liespoudent remained in Eugland'for about three months on this occasion, and relumed to Victoria, [ think, atiout the mouth of August, 1005. in 1000 respondent again came to England, and .-.laved for about three months. At the time of this visit I heard rumors to the ell'ect that the respondent had been going about a good deal with a woman whose name was given to me as Connie Waugli; that lie was seen with her at the races, theatres, and cafes in Jlcl-l-'Juntc; and that he had bought a house for her at St. liilda, and that she was then in London, and that respondent tad been seen with her in London. About this time respodent complained to me that I was spending too much money, and I replied, telling hint what I had heard, and I. said to him angrily that if lie could afford to buy a house for Ibis woman he could surely afford '.ill the money was spending, and 1 told him I would be compelled .to take divorce proceedings against him. lie replied, angrily, 'Very well, do so.' During the visit of respondent to Loudon, ll.ough we were both living at IJO, I'urkiauc, 1 saw very little of llini, and we did not go about together, and even before this conversation we were not on friendly terms, it had, however, been arranged that respondent should lake our eidcoi daughter, Phyllis, ol whom lie was very proud, out" to Victoria for a three months' trip, and ill pursuance of this arrangement respondent, in August, 100T, went to Victoria, taking our daughter with him.

"Willi respondent's consent I remained in London with our youngest daughter. The visit of Phyllis to Victoria extended much 'beyond the three months, and she did not*return to England until January, 11)00. During her stay in Victoria she became engaged to be married. the 111 urriage was arranged to take place at 'Kupertswood' on June Ist last, and in April of this y car she and I left Loudon for Mel'bounie, where we arrived on May 10. After our arrival at Melbourne I and mv daughter Stayed at -MenziiV Hotel, 'for a few days. Then ire stayed at 'Kupertswood' June 3, when my daughter was married. Respondent did not stay with us either at Vlcnzies' or at 'Kupertswood' during this period, excepting for one week-end. On the afternoon of •June 1, after our daughter's marriage, lie left on, 1 believe, a business trip for New Guinea,

"Since then I stayed at 'liupertswood' '' fH'iabo !i t. a fortnight, and subsequently with friends and relations in Victoria. There has never been any deed of separation in existence as between us" I'liully petitioner adds: "1 am nnablf to suv what was the nature or origin ol he acquaintance .between respondent and Conine Waugli, but 1 believe that respondent, since the celebration of onr marriage in .May, 1890, has teen guilty 'A repeated acts of misconduct with Jier ;>t various places in .Uclbounin and Victona Ihe precise occasion when I suspected such misconduct bel ween respondent and Connie Waugli was about May Ol June 100/ when T heard certain .1111101-. but I had HO information or proof in tins matter until after mv ar- •< al in Melbourne in 1000, and I instiodo L ' dra <=' s 115 soon as 1 "'as able