SYDNEY DIVORCE SUIT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1155, 2 October 1883, Page 1

SYDNEY DIVORCE SUIT.

The Sydney papers received by the s.s. Wakatipu contain full reports of the great divorce suit, Horwitz v. Horwitz and Solomon, which had been occupying the Supreme Court of that colony for several days. The petitioner, Michael Henry Horwitz is a shipping ageDt and commission merchant, and he prayed for a dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, Flora Martha Horwitz (formerly Flßrd 1 Martha Marks) on the ground-of her adultery with the co-respondent, Henry Albert Solomon. The respondent and co-respondent filed answers denying the adultery. The respondent brought, also, a counter charge of adultery against the petitioner, and a charge of cruelty. She also pleaded condonation. The petitioner (we learn from the Sydney Evening News) is 41 years of age, and a rather fine looking man. Mrs Horwitz, the respondent, is about 25 years of nge, nnd has considerable pretensions to good looks. She is, moreover, of a modest and hviylike demeanour. The co-respondent is a mere boy in appearance, although he is stated to be 22 years of age. He is short in stature, and has little or no hair on his face ; there being only a slight vestige of moustache, It transpired during the course of the trial that Solomon has been carrying on business a stock and share broker.

Michael Henry Horwitz, the petitioner, said he was married to the respondent, Flora Martha Marks, at Melbourne, on the sth December, 1877. There were two children issue of the marriage. At first

they lived al Forest Lodge, but in five weeks they removed to Lavoni House, William Btreet. A lane divided the lastmentioned houfe from one kept by a Mrs Paisley. The windows of each house at the side overlook one another. Solomon was introduced to witness about 14 months ago by Mr Charles Marks, n brother of the respondent. The first thing witness ever had to complain of was one night at the theatre. Witness went out leaving his wife, and on his.return he found Solomon sitting by her and whispering to her. In consequence h* told Solomon not to visit the house again. After this Solomon went to live at Paisley's, and on the 15th March, 1883, petitioner, on returning from his bath, found his wife talking on her fingers fo Solomon, who was in the opposite house (Paisley's): His wife was in her nightdress at the time. He asked what it all meant, and his wife paid if he did not like it he could do the other thing. He was so vexed he slapped her face. On returning from business that day he found his wife had gone. He traced to the Eoyal Hotel, and begged her to return home. She insisted on a separation, and threatened to send for a policeman to turn him out. He was so unwell that he determined to go to Melbourne, and did so. He left word with his manager, Mr Nicholls, to look after Mrs Horwitz, und Bee she had all she wanted. After some negotiations for a reconciliation, Mrs Horwitz joined her husband at Melbourne Thence they went to Albury, where respondent left for Sydney. On returning to Sydney witness was told something by Nicholls, in consequence of which he saw Rosenfeldt, who had married a sister of Mrs Horwitz, and they had a meeting at the house of witness. Those present were respondent, Mr Rosenfeldt, Mr S Want, solicitor, and witness. M'Laren, the nurse, was called in, and she said Solomon had met Mrs Horwitz at Alhury, and had travelled with her to Melbourne in the came carriage. M'Laren, the nurse, said the respondent and co-respon-dent called each other ' Flo* and • Harry.' Witness on hearing this ordered his wife out of the house, and she cried and nsked for forgiveness. Witness went and saw Mr Solomon, sen., ihe co-respondent being present. Witness asked that young Solomon might be sent out of the country. Nicholls, who was present, said to young Solomon, ' Then you have been committing adultery with Mrs Horwitz,' and he replied, ' I have been mad, I *>ave been* mad.' Witness' wife told him she had got £SO from young Solomon. About December last witness' wife began to go out nt night. She onca said she was going to a seance. On returning home she was quite delighted, and said she was a medium. Afterwards his wife was often going to these seances. Upon one occasion she went to a gathering in Darlinghurst road, and when he went to call for her he found the house in total darkness. On returning he saw his wife get out of a cab. He thought he saw a gentleman get out of that eab in Darlinghurst road. When they got into the house he asked whether a gentleman had got out of the cab on the way. She replied 'No,'but that the cabman had stopped in Darlinghnrst road to ask the way, and a maD crossed the road at the time. He believed her. When she told him about being mesmerised, he expostulated with her on her choice of companions. She asked to be forgiven. After this she made shopping an excuse for going out. The witness denied using crneltv to respondent, or that on the 15th Mirch or any other day he had flourished a razor over her. Flora Martha Horwitz, tht rrßpondent, said she was not 19 years old when married to Horwitz six years ago. She had only known him for a few days. Five days after they were married and were living at Forest Lodpe. Horwitz locked up her travelling and other boxes. Then he went into the room and remained an hour. After that he came out, bringing with him faded bouquetH, school-girl letters, and other trifles that witnsss had collected in her school-cirl days. He said, ' Who gave you the bouquetsone of your admirers?' Witness asked him to give them to her- that is, the flowers and letters. Ha said he would not, and went downstairs. After coming up, he Baid he put them in the kitchen fire- He said he thought he had mad« a mistake in marrying witness, who said, •lam sorry you should say such a thing,

seeing that we have only been married a few days.' He then went out of the house. In the afternoon, about 3 o'clock, he returned, and said ho had made a great mistake in marrying witness, and he was sure they could not be happy together. His manner was cold and cruel. Ho struck her thnfc afternoon, thn fifth day of their married life. He came home very ill-tempered, and when witness said she was sorry he had said what he had, he struck her. After this his -manner One day witneisalked for some money. He said he had somey but wanted it himself. H« left the house and got into a 'bus. Witness followed. Her husband went into a house io Goulbum street. Witness spoke to him in the iiftetnoon, and said what she had seen. He admitted haying a girl there who had had a child by him. Before, witness heard something of this from a servant girl. They had a quarrel, and then he struck her with his clenched fist. He refused to give the'woman up. In a week after this he cam* home very miserable, and said the child was dead. He used to speak about a. girl at the Post Office Hotel, Lizzie. Onca just after marriage witness broke a glass accidentally. He°flew into a great rage and struck her. She became insensible. Horwitz was very mean about money matters, made her no allowance, and paid the bills himself. Once when going to the theatre, in adjusting her shawl, «he knocked an ornament off the table He flow in a rage, bwore, and declined to tro to the theatre. When she got home he kicked her in the small of the back. Mr Rosenfeldt interfered, and he said, ' I will break her into my ways.' He often kicked her. Once in bed she asked, ' Harry, have you said your prayers V and he replied, 'Yes, I have prayed that you may be dead before rnoining.' While enceinte of the first child he kicked her. In November, 1881, be slapped her face because something had annoyed him. Amy Wilson the servant heard the noise. Ho grum'ded because witness spent 14s in a present of a tobacoo pouch for Mr Rosenfeldfc, who was engaged to her sister. Last February she told him it washer birthday, and he threw u boot, saying,' Take that for your present.' It struck her on the shoulder. He was always threatening to cut her throat if she didn't leave the house. On the 15th March he pulled out her nrtifical teeth, and afterwards smashed them. He also flourished a razor ever her head. Witness then denied that she communicated with Solom-m on that morning by means of her fingers. The also denied committing iidultery with Solomon at any time or place. The latest she was ever out at night was 10.45. She admitted making trips to Sandringham, La Perouse, and other places and borrowing' money of .Solomon while staying at the Royal. She positively denied tho evidence of M'Lnron as to what took place at tho Royal, and stated it was untrue «he arid Solomon were sitting on the sofa with their arm« round each other. In cross-examination she denied ,th» making of signals to Solomon, but admitted the sending of a i telegram in her hnnd-writingaafollows : ' Horwitz has gone away from Sydney. I am almost man". B» in the passage at 9 o'clock. Look well about you before you come in.—(Signed), Mrs Jones.' Couldn't explain why sl»e signed • Mrs Jones,' or why she said he was to look well about him.

The co-respondent was also oiled, and denied having been guilty of any immoral conduct with the respondent. The jury returned a verdict for the (petitioner with £SOOO damages against the co-respondent.