Victorian Moray: Elgin 'scandal' in court
In the Court of Sessions on Wednesday, Lord Stormonth-Darling heard evidence in a defended action by William Taylor Harper, Bishopmill, Elgin, against his wife, Jessie Tyther Thomson or Harper, at present residing in Edinburgh.
Harper was for a time a grocer in Elgin.
Latterly he had been a grocer's manager in Johannesburg, South Africa.
At the time of the outbreak of the South African War he joined the Utrecht Mounted Police in which corps he remains.
Harper was married to the defendant at Elgin on 3rd November, 1886, her father being a hairdresser in the town.
Three children were born of the marriage.
Harper's business as a grocer was not successful and afterwards his wife and he moved to London.
The defendant lived with him there till 6th June, 1896, when she left him to be present, he understood, at her mother's funeral.
She did not return, although he expected her back within a month.
He went to South Africa in 1897.
In June 1899 he returned to this country and endeavoured to obtain custody of his children but failed to discover their whereabouts.
In 1902 he returned again to this country on furlough and caused further inquiries to be made.
William Scott, solicitor, Elgin, said his firm Souter & Scott discovered the children to be in the custody of the defendant's father in Elgin.
He advised Harper he could not get the children without going to the Court of Sessions.
It was also discovered that the defendant, his wife, was living at 40 Gillespie Crescent, Edinburgh.
Harper stated he was in difficulties at the time his wife left him but was always a steady man and kindly in his attitude towards her, although they had tiffs.
Witness William Marshall, farmer, Armadale, said he had known the late Thomas Thornburn, who died in June 1901 at the age of 35.
Four years previous to that Mr Thornburn had told him he was going to be married.
Later the witness received letters from Thornburn from various places, which he understood were being visited during the honeymoon.
The witness then visited Thornburn who introduced the lady as his wife and spoke of her as such.
She called him 'Tom' and he called her 'Jessie'.
The witness said he never heard any suggestion that the lady was not Mrs Thornburn until after that gentleman's death.
Matthew Sillars stated that he was for fourteen years in the employment of Thornburn, and looked after his dogs and pigeons.
He remembered that in 1897 a neighbouring home was being fitted with electric lights.
Thornburn took an interest in that, and going about the place, became friendly with one of the maids.
Then he told the witness that a new housekeeper was coming – "a lady housekeeper" – who was not to work.
This was Jessie Harper.
Thornburn presently went away for his health.
On his return he was accompanied by the woman in question.
The witness met them at the station, and on inquiring on his master's health was told by Thornburn he has not been very well but felt much better after "the wife" joined him at Oban.
Later on the witness drank both their healths in the studio and wished them happiness. He always understood afterwards that the woman had become Mrs Thornburn.
George Jack, solicitor, Dalkeith, said the late Mr Thornburn and he had known each other very well.
They had both been members of Stirling County Cricket Club.
The witness left the area in 1890 and saw little of Thornburn till November 1900.
In that month the latter called on him and asked him to act for his housekeeper in an action of divorce she intended to raise against her husband on the grounds of desertion.
A week later he called again, this time accompanied by the defendant.
The witness thought he referred to her as "Mrs Harper", his housekeeper.
In January 1901 he saw Thornburn again and afterwards on the 11th and 18th May.
On these latter occasions the defendant was acting as nurse to Thornburn who was very ill.
Thornburn told the witness that if it had not been for the defendant he would have been in his grave long before.
He received instruction to prepare a will.
The stated nett value of Thornburn's estate was £3315, the income from which was £135 18s.
Cross-examined the witness was asked whether it did not seem strange that a man should leave his whole fortune to his housekeeper and her children.
The witness answered he simply drew up the will as instructed and formed no opinion on the matter.
After hearing counsel, his Lordship pronounced decree of divorce.
He was of the opinion that the defendant's adultery was clearly proved.
He made no order as to the custody of the children, the effect of which would be to leave them where they were – with the defender's father – and found no expenses due to or by either party.
