The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-09

4 hess anu Welt. L stayed DelOW, Out
my wife ran after him and heard that
he jumped quickly in the gig which
was in readiness TO take him away.
When my wife came down below / told
her that had quite enough of this sort
of Irritation. having already seen her
engaged in similar firtations at Sa-
n.oa and Yokohama, and that / had had
Ienough of this sort of thing, and l told
her: You would better pack up and
Igo back to your people She said all
fright. and taking her hat went to the
telegraph office, and upon my talking
with Sir Alexander Swetnam and my
counsel, Mr.. Won Brandt, Remington
IaPologized and promised never to see
my wife any more. 1 asked my wife
not to make any further scandal and
Iccntinue to stay with me on board the
Tolna, and that l would pardon her.
She said she would have stayed if her
father had not sent her money in reply
to her telegram, but now that her
father had sent her the money she
would go.
MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT THAT
FAILS
! In reply to my wife's request to live
on land l said: eff your people give
1 HE Tic dlHOUul ltildt they pTOUllS6u, DIS
you know, before our marriage-that is
a million francs-then can give up the
yachting and live where you like on
shore" My reason for keeping up my
yachting life so long, besides my love
for the sea, was that I was always
waiting for the payment of the money
which the parents of my wife promised
me before my marriage with their
hot cho
have it at the time of the marriage, but
lit was never given me, although they
continued to promise that 1 should have
! it later. only had money enough my
I self to own the yacht and could not
afford to keep an establishment on
land, too, especially as my wife was
rather lavish in her expenditures. If
had the means it would have been a
pleasure to me to have had a house on
: land and to keep the Tolna as a racing
yacht.
cannot state the exact money fur
nished by me to the plaintiff for her
maintenance and support from the
time of our marriage until May, 1900,
but the amount was about 100000 gull
dens, some 100000. If l had been alone
1 should have lived on my income, as
L did before my marriage, but the
amount just specified l drew from my
capital at various times to cover the
demands of my wife for money.
Between April 20, 1899, and the COM
mencement of this action, May IL, 1900,
1 gave the plaintiff no money; first, be-
cause she had received a large credit
from her father; second, because she
did not ask me for any, and third, be-
cause she was living with her parents.
who were supposed to be wealthy. I'm
til we arrived at Japan on May 80,
1897, my wife did not receive altogeth-
er from any source more than $25, as
she herself expressly told me.
/ had for two years, that is, from
1898 to 1895. large apartment, 80 Ave
nue. de Jena, in Paris, which occupied
before my marriage. This apartment
was beautifully fitted up with my own
furniture and fittings. Besides I had
there my own horses and carriages.
This whole establishment was sold out
in 1895, as 1 could no longer pay the
rent.
Il never remained away from the Toll
ma over night, leaving the plaintiff on
the yacht. did not remain away from
the yacht at any place except with
my wife. When 1 left Singapore my
| wife in no manner objected or disap-
proved of my departing without her.
After receiving the money from her
father by telegraph she spent the in
terval of the four or five days before
I sailed in carefully packing up her
belongings. She not only used all the
trunks she had on board, but bought
several large chests, and when all were
filled had them taken to Mr.. Bond,
who was to ship them elsewhere for
my wife. We lunched the day Of my
sailing with the Austrian consul, Mr..
Bond, and then with him we went to
the Tolna. My wife and Mr.. Bond
came on board of the Tolna for short
time just before the yacht weighed
anchor. My wife and Mr.. Bond then
descended to the launch and 1 also
went down. My wife and I kissed and
parted in the presence of Mr.. Bond.
Our parting was affectionate, but my
wife in no manner whatever objected
or disapproved of my departing with
out her.
From the first two letters written by
my wife after our parting at Singa-
pore l fully expected her to return to
me. After the third letter, which I re-
ceived at Port Said, I suspected that
there was something the matter. Less
than a fortnight after leaving Port
Said l arrived at Trieste and I was
astounded to read in the newspapers
that my wife was seeking divorce,
which I did not believe to be the case
and publicly denied.
PRAISES HIS YACHT.
From the story of his parting with
his wife and his public denial that she
had sued him for divorce Count Fes-
tetics drifts into a warm defense of his
yacht and concludes with a dramatic
description of the loss of the little YES
sci. He shows some elation over the
fact that he cheated the savages of
the Malabar coast out of the enjoy
ment Of his vessel after their refusal
to aid him in getting her af1oar after
she struck a reef. His defense of the
vessel is for the purpose of proving
that Countess Festetics and her rela-
tives had none and could have no OBJ
lection to the Tolna, her fittings or
her seaworthiness. His description OF
the loss of the vessel has the object
of proving that even though had
Countess Festetics been aboard her life
would not have been endangered, and
| to establish his contention that it was
not lack of strength of the vessers
beams but lack of skill on the part Of
mariners that took the Tolna to her
doom. He says:
The yacht was well constructed by
Captain Turner of San Francisco at
Benicia, and I know that she was
stanch, for l saw every piece of wood
that went into her. She was luxurious
ly furnished, commodious and a fine
sailer My wife's family all saw the
yacht before we set sail on her and
l :. L.