Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

AN INDIAN DIVORCE CASE.

In the Diyqrce Court on Nor. 21 the case of Macdonald, jr.",, Macdonald was heard. The case was of a remarkable and painful character* The petitioner, MajorGeneral William Charles Bobertson Macdonald, of the Indian Army^ married the respondent, a lady in a good position in life, at Inverness, in 1857, and there was issue of their marriage one child, a daughter, who wa9 born in 185,8. Tfciej>etitioner returned froß*|ttßia on full":fi|*in 1871, and after- traveling on the Continent with his wife and dWfchter for a~flriryc«rs, he took up his Toiifonte at Hans place, from which, in. October, 1877, he removed to a house in Belgravje road. At the end of June last, he received an invitation, in which Mrs, Macdonald and her daughter were also included, to visit some friends in the country. Mrs Macdonald pressed him to accept it, but intimated^* that she herself would * remain in London. The intimation somewhat displeased him, there being no reason why she should not accompany him on the visit; but he attached no v importance to it until a day or two afterwards, when his daughter made-certain communications to him in reference to her mother's, conduct. Those communications wire to the effect that for a considerable time her mother had been in the habit ofreceivingthe'-clandestine visits of gentlemen, and of carrying on a clandestine correspondence with them/ Up to the moment of these communications the petitioner had no reason to suspect :\ bis' wife's I fidelity, and; he at first refused to believe them. On the sug- . gestion, however, of his daughter, he called at a library in the Belgrave road, where she alleged, Mrs Macdonald was in the,-habit of receiving all secret communications. He asked for and obtained letter^ addressed' ■'■'■*• G.N.M.," the alleged initials of Mrs Macdonald in her cdrrespbnd^npe^with;.HtW"deceased corespondent* Vapd , IbV 1 those lettefs satisfied Kirn of his r wife's guilt. On July '& he taxed her with it; and asked her if she had any thing, to say in extenuation of her conduct.,f•She replied, accords ing to the statement of the petitioner, that - she cbuidnoi deny thecharge--- I'that she has been uafaitliful, that she had dishonored him, and that she had committed ■ adultery. 1' Tliereupoa the petitioner requested her to leave the house, which she did, apartments having, been first taken for her at the Grosrenor Hotel, and all relations between them ceased. In the petition it was charged against Mrs Macdonald that she had been guilty of adultery with the deceased co-respondent and" divers other men who were unknown to the petitioner." In the •'particulars," however, the names of several gentlemen were mentioned; bat, as the petitioner declared that he had no evidence against them,' he wai excused, from! making them co-respondents, .on the understanding that, as against the respondent, no evidence beyond,, her pwii statements chouki be given in Support, of those charges. The respondent denied the severircharges alleged'against' her, and made a counter-charge against the petitioner, to the effect that he himself had been guilty of adultery with the" widow of an officer with whom he^had served in India, one of whose sons, a captain in the army, married the daughter of the petitioner. The counter-charge against fu c _«»titioner was withdrawn, but !; % li '"'ter hi« emphatic denial of it not until a. •n.chiefandcrossexaminon examination-1. Ooart rosei t he ahon; and before iv to , wi ,h the omcer s widow above allude i«r e< J (h* permission of his lordship, enu. witness-box and likewise denied on othe acousation. The case in support of the petition occupied the entire day. In support of the petition, MajorGeneral Macdonald was called. He stated that he had noticed for some time before his daughter, made to him the communications which led to the institution of the suit that she was much depressed, and he described the circurii- . stances under which his wife made the alleged confession of her guilt, ''On returning; home," he said, "on the • ,4th of July, she was seated in' the drawing-room readiug a divorce case. My daughter and a young friend of hers were also in the room. 1 asked her to come out, as I wished to speak to her. She made three efforts -to rise, but each time fell back into the chair. I went up into my bedroom and called her. When she came rip I said, 'I have damning proof, oral or documentary, of your guilt. I accuse you of having dishonoured me, of haying' been unfaithful, of having committed adultery with - ——.- (the corespondent) and others. Her reply was, .'.' I cannot deny'it. I have dishonoured, y0u,.1 have unfaithful, I have committed adultery with and others.'" He declared that she repeated the confession in precisely the same terms in the presence of their daughter, and that she left the house without demur., He .added < that he had no acquaintance whatever with, the deceased co-respondent'or.the other gentleman mentioned in the suit, and lie gave an emphatic denial to the counter-charge of adultery. • The petitioner's daughter, bow the wife of Major Coningham, of the Madras Staff Corps, ,to whom she; was married in October last, stated that she and her v mother met the co-respondent near Hansplace, Where they were then living, between five and six o'clock one evening at the end of 1876, that he accosted her mother, who spoke with him alone, and ~ that he called on her mother the next day,. and on several other occasions when lier father was. at his club. By tile desire of her mother, she never entered tho drawing- rOom^u the occasions of this gentleman's visits, and instructions, she said, were given to the servants that all other visitors should be denied when he called. She declared that looking over the bannister as the co respondent was leaving one evening, she saw him kiss her mother, and she added that her mother had on several occasions volua-

tarily told her that such familiarities, passed between them, that they were very fond of each other, and were going to wait for each other for five years. Her mother, also,'she said. confided to her that she was visited in like manner by the gentlemen whose 'names were mentioned in the "particulars," and she on several occasions accompanied her mother to the*circulating libraries in South Kensington and the Be!grave road, to receive the letters addressed' to her by them, under the initials '",.6. N. Mi." Her mother made no secret < f the correspondence, and sometimes read to witness portions of the letter. With respect to the alleged confession by her mother, she gave precisely the same account of the matter as that given by the petitioner, and protested that she had saoh affection for her mother that she:did- not believe anything actually wrong was going on until June last, when her mother's manner changed and the servants communicated their suspicions to her. Other witnesses, servants at the house in Belgrave road, to which the petitioner removed after leaving Hansplace, were also called, but their evidence was immaterial. On the part

of the respondent it was not denied that Blie had corresponded with the several gentlemen whose names were mentioned in the proceedings, and that she had been also visited by most of them, but it was s alleged that, however imprudent and improper her conduct might have been, she had not been guilty of the criminality charged against her. In the witness-box Mrs Macdonald admitted that prior to meeting the deceased co-respondent in 1876 she, had only seen him twice some .... years before at a table d'hote at Paris, and that she had never visited or been visited \>y his wife, though the families occupied opposite houses in Belgrave road ; that a Mr Delacour, whom she casually . met at a concert, gave her his card on leaving and called on her a few days afterwards $-that in 1876 she renewed at Paris her acquaintance with a gentleman named Selvotari, whom she had met some time before at Borne, and that they had corresponded ; and that on the invitation of a gentleman named , Williams, whom she casually met at a music-shop,, she called at his chambers, in

Devonshire street, to see an old and rare book of Welsh harp music, of which he vras possessed; but" she denied tha. either with those gentleman or any of the other persons named tad she been, criminally intimate. She further denied that she had ever requested her daughter not to come into the drawing-room when tlie co-respondent called..: upon her, declaring, on the contrary, that her daughter was present on the occasion of most of his visits, and she never made, the confession of. .guilt-: attributed to her, or that she willingly .left her home. She left it, she said, because the petitioner

: had threatened to have'her removed by . the police if she did not go. JMiss Annie Weirmouth, daughter of the landlady of the house in Hans-place, deposed that (o the best of her>recollection Miss Mac donald was in the drawing-room with her mother whenever she opened the door to the co-respondent and showed him up, and that there, was no secrecy about his visits. The President, in summing up the evidence "to the jury, said it was practically admitted that the case rested, ■on the confessions of the respondent. Confessions, however, should be carefully watched. _ The Court which dealt with matrimonial offences before the institution of the Divorce Court did not allow the confessions of the parties to be acted upon at all. That was not the

law now, but the reason which was the foundation of the rule still prevailed. It was not pretended that in any of her

conversations with her daughter the respondent had ever admitted that she

had been guilty of adultery with any of the persons named in the case; and in the last scene with her husband -the only name mentioned was that of the corespondent. There had been no admis-

sion; therefore, on her part of criminality with any of the other persons whose names had been introduced into the proceedings, and the charges in respect of them could not be sustained. In respect of the co-respondent the case was different. The substantive evidence in support of the charge of adultery with him rested on the statements of Mrs Coningham,* junior, but .the evidence should be taken in connection with the general conduct of the respondent. It seems to him to be conduct of the most

extraordinary character, shows great irregularity of mind, but it was for the jury to say whether it might be explained on the hypothesis that it was the conduct of an elderly flirt, or, in. the case of the co-respondent that it waß only consistent with the theory of guilt. The jury, after deliberating for about half an hour, found as their verdict that the respondent had been guilty of adultery with the corespondent; and in returning it the foreman, on their behalf, expressed satisfaclion at the counter charge against MajorGeneral Maedonald having been withdrawn. The Court pronounced a decree nisi, with costs. An application for a new trial has been refused.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THS18790204.2.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3109, 4 February 1879, Page 1

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,855

AN INDIAN DIVORCE CASE. Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3109, 4 February 1879, Page 1

AN INDIAN DIVORCE CASE. Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3109, 4 February 1879, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert