Roger Henry Jamieson (abt. 1865)

The Jamieson Divorce Case.

AN INJURED HUSBAND.
DAMAGES £500.

ON Wednesday in the Divorce Court, before Mr Justice Windeyer, the suit of Roger Jamieson v. Charlotte Harriett Jamieson (Thomas Frewin co-respondent) was heard before a special jury within closed doors. The case, it will be remembered, was closely connected with a shooting incident which occurred some little time back within the walls of Darlinghurst Gaol, where the petitioner fired a shot at the co-respondent, who was then a confinee of the debtors' prison.

Roger Henry Jamieson, the petitioner, deposed that he was married to the respondent in December, 1887, at St. David's Church, Surry Hills. At the time of the marriage his wife was 17 and witness was 23 years of age. After living together for three weeks his business of commercial traveller called him away for several weeks. On his return he expostulated with his wife for having gone to the theatre during his absence. In consequence of this she went home to her parents, and remained at home for nine months during which time their only child was born.

In January, 1889, she returned to him and they lived happily together for 16 months. Last January he relinquished his engagement as a commercial traveller, and commenced business as a mercer on his own account. In May last they went to reside at the house of petitioner's brother; but respondent raised objections to living there, and they left the place, and afterwards stayed at the Town Hall Coffee Palace for one night. The following day respondent went on a visit to a lady friend, and did not return.

The next time he saw her was at a solicitor's office, when she told him she had left him for ever, as she would not again live with him. In response to her request he made her an allowance of £3 per week on condition that she brought the child to see him every Monday morning. She informed him she was living at the house of a lady friend, but she refused to give him her address. She then went away, and during the afternoon Frewin, the co-respondent, whom he had casually known, called on him, and, in course of conversation with witness he asked what was the matter with him, as he did not appear to be looking very well. Petitioner replied that it was owing to domestic trouble, as he explained that his wife had gone away from him without sufficient reason. Frewin consoled with him and they went out and had a drink, when witness told Frewin that he thought his brother and sister-in-law were the cause of all the trouble. During the time they were absent Mrs Jamieson had entered the shop. Frewin informed petitioner that he had known many similar cases, and suggested that if he were introduced to Mrs Jamieson he might be able to act the part of peace maker between them.

Witness acted on the suggestion of Frewin, who after a conversation with the respondent told witness that he had not succeeded in his mission, as Mrs Jamieson had a hard heart. After this respondent visited petitioner's shop every Monday and drew her allowance, but she would not disclose where she was living. Frewin continued to visit the petitioner daily, and the latter told him all his trouble and plans. Frewin now established himself as a confidant of Jamieson's, and told him he ought to find the respondent, and endeavor to get her to return. After about six weeks time petitioner had his suspicions roused as to the doings of his wife, and he put the matter into the hands of a private detective, who found she was living with Frewin as his wife at a house at Dawes Point. The petitioner, accompanied by the sheriff's officers, went to the house to see Frewin, who was to be arrested on a writ of ca?re. When Frewin met them he said he wanted to go upstairs again to see Connie. He was not allowed to go, whereupon he told the landlady to call Connie. In response to this Mrs Jamieson came down into the lobby, and Frewin then went up to her and informed her of what had taken place, and asked her for money. She gave him some cash, and as he was being taken away by the officers she threw her arms round his neck and besought him not to leave her. He told her he would be back again the following day, and after he had kissed and embraced he was removed to Darlinghurst. During all this time the respondent said nothing to her husband.

At the trial of Jamieson for shooting at Frewin the latter admitted that he was acquainted with respondent at the time he asked witness to introduce him to her. He declined to say whether there had been any previous misconduct between them, but he admitted that he had lived with the respondent after the introduction.

Private Detective Lewis gave evidence to the effect that he saw the respondent living at a house at Dawes Point as Mrs Frewin, and where he served her with the citation. The landlady of a boarding-house at Dawes Point stated that the respondent and the co-respondent had lived at her house for three weeks as man and wife.

His Honor having briefly summed up, the jury, after a short deliberation, brought in a verdict for the petitioner on all the issues, with damages for £500 against tho co-respondent. His Honor granted the decree nisi.

THE JAMIESON DIVORCE CASE.

Attachment of the Co-respondent. At the last sittings of the divorce courts it will be remembered that Roger Jamieson obtained a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage, with £500 damages and costs against Thomas Frewin, at the time a confinee in Darlinghurst debtors' prison. This morning, before Mr. Justice Foster, an application was made for a writ of attachment to issue against Thomas Frewin, on the ground of non-payment of the verdict or costs. It was intimated to the court that Frewin was about to be released from the debtors' prison under the bankruptcy order, and that the writ of attachment was necessary for production in the bankruptcy proceedings. The order was granted.