DIVORCE FOR DUCHESS.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 January 1921, Page 6

DIVORCE FOR DUCHESS.

. DETECTIVES AND DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH. HIS WOMAN COMPANION IN. PARIS. The Duchess of Marlborough was granted a decree nisi in the Divorce Court on November 9 on the ground of the duke’s statutory desertion (fioncompliance with an order for the restitution of conjugal rights) and adultery. Sir Edward Carson, in opening the wife’s petition, had to inform Mr. Justice Horridge that the duchess was too. ill to attend. Her depositions were road, and these repeated her evidence given last March, wljen, a tall graceful figure in sable, gave her story of separation, and obtained an order for restitution of conjugal rights, with which the duk< did not comply. The story was taken a step farthel by private detectives, one of whom fol* lowed the duke last spring from London to Paris. There they saw him enter Claridge’s Hotel in the Champs-Elyee* with a woman of 25. He registered a» “Mons. Spencer et Madame,” adding an address in this country. At the hotel the respondent and the woman ocett* pied room No. 193. There was further evidence that thf petition was served on the duke at the Travellers’ Club in Paris in the presence of some of the detectives who had watched him at Claridge’s; and they identified him. Mr. Bayford, K.C., for the duke, said briefly that he was not in a position to deny the charges. In a sentence of certainly not more than six words th* duchess was granted a decree nisi, and costs. THE DUKE’S LETTERS. Sir Edward Carson said the marriage’ was on November 6, 1895, in New York. In 1907, in consequence of differencea that arose, there was a separation, and a deed made provision as to the custody of the two children and their education. Husband and wife occasionally met with a view to the bringing up of the children. The younger child, Lord Ivor Spencer-Churchill, came of age in October 1919, and there were negotiations for a renewed deed. Husband and wife, said Sir Edward, met and agreed to live together, as th® children had then grown up. Oh November 27 a new deed was executed revoking that of July 13, 1907. The new deed merely made provision for an allowance to the sons. The duke and duchess lived together until December 15, 1919. On that date the duke left, and wrote this letter: Blenheim, Woodstock. Dear Consuelo,—We have tried our best to mend the past and start life afresh, but I fear that in the long period of our separation, now upwards of 12 years, we have grown too far apart to live happily together again. I appreciate all you have tried to do during our reunion, but I am now convinced it is impossible.—Believe me, yours, Sunnjt The duchess wrote in answer: Dear Sunny,—l have received youf letter. I wish you had spoken to me instead of writing. It seems a pity now that we ever came together again only for everything to end Jike this. It is useless to say more. I must go away and rest for a while.—Yours, Consuelo. She was not strong at the time, said Sir Edward, and went abroad fop & while. On January 21 she wrote: Dear Sunny,—While I have been away I have thought over everything, and you, too have had time to reflect, so I urn writing to ask you to reconsider your decision not to return to me. If yon will do so, I can assure you ndthintf on my part .will be wanting to try anq make you happy.—Yours, Consul The duke replied: My dear Consuelo,—T have received your letter of the 21st, written on vouf return from the Continent. As I wrote to you in December, when we parted, I am convinced that it is impossible fof us to live happily