Person Page - 251

Newspaper-Articles

• 23 Dec 1893: A PRETTY WEDDING. A pretty wedding took place last Wednesday, 20th December, at St. George's Church, Malvern, when Mias Mabel Lilian Sayer, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. William Sayer, was married to M. Juste Armand Mortagne, son of M. and Madame Cesar Mortagne, of Tourcoing, France. The ceremony was performed by the Rev. C. J. Godby, incumbent of St. George's. At 12.30 the bride entered the church with her father (who gave her away) and followed by her bridesmaids, Misses Effie Clarke, Blyth Glenister and Rose Glenister. She wore cream duchesse satin, stylishly made, with a plain trained skirt and a court bodies trimmed with lace and chiffon, a wreath of orange blossom and white heather, her veil being fastened by a diamond star, the gift of the bridegroom. She also wore a handsome diamond bangle, the gift of M. Montagne, sen., and carried a shower bouquet. The bridesmaids were gowned in cream spotted muslin over buttercup trimmed with lace, empire sashes of buttercup silk, white chip hats, ostrich tips and buttercup bows. They also wore broken wish-bone brooches set with sapphires and diamonds, and carried white and yellow shower bouquets, gifts of the bridegroom. After the ceremony the guests adjourned to "Inverbreakie," Toorak, where they were entertained by Mr. and Mrs. Sayer. Breakfast was partaken of in a marques on the lawn, and the weather was perfect for an outdoor gathering. A band enlivened the proceedings with a programme of popular music. The bride and bridegroom, who left by the Adelaide express for Ballarat during the afternoon, contemplate an early visit to Europe. The bride's travelling dress was of brown serge, made with a Russian bodice, relieved by a pink vest and lace ; her hat was of sunburnt straw, trimmed with black satin and quills.
  Among the guests were Mr. Mortagne, sen; Rev. C. J. and Mrs Godby, Mr. and Mrs. Carrington, Misses Carrington, Mr., Mrs. and the Misses Shackell, Mr. K H. Shackell, Mr. and Mrs. J. L, Purves, Mr and Mrs. W. T. Coldham, Mr. and Mrs. W. I. Woolcott, Mr. H. Austin, Mr Renard, Mr. Troost, Mrs. and Miss Hamilton, Mrs. Clough, Mr. and Mrs. I. Sherrard, Mrs. and Miss Blyth, Mr. and Mrs. B. J. Fink, Mr. H. and Miss Fink, Messrs. Leslie and Percy Clarke, Misses Helen and Effie Clarke, Mr. and the Misses Glenister, Mr. P. Levi, Mr. Fred Grant, Mrs. W. R. Wilson, Miss Wilson, Miss Napier, Mr. Boggio, Mr. Phalempin, Mr. J. Aitken, Mr. A. A. Samuel, Mr. Arthur Garner, Mons. P. Maistre, Vice-Chancellor Consulate Francais, Mr. George Burke, Mr. Coleman Burke, Mr. and Mrs. W. Oldfield, Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Murdoch.
  The following are some of ths presents:— Mr and Mrs. H. Thorpe, diamond brooch; the Misses Hamilton, topaz and pearl necklet with diamond clasp; Mr. W. D. Clarke, case of fish knives and forks ; Mrs. Ernest Carter, salad bowl and spoons; Miss Carter, claret jug ; mother of the bride, case of crown Derby and silver afternoon tea set ; father of the bride, Collard and Collard grand piano ; Madame Mortagne, white ostrich fan ; bridegroom, diamond star and Russian leather jewel case ; M. Mortagne, sen., diamond brace let ; Mr. Phil Levi, cabinet of cutlery and plate, and case of dessert knives; Mr. Boggio, bread plate and knife ; Mr. Troost and Mr. Stoltenhoff, liqueur stand and tray, and album on easel ; Mr. and Mrs de la Cour Russell, case of afternoon teaspoons and tongs ; Messrs. "Gundagai" and Thomson, silver mounted dressing case ; Mrs.Clough and Miss Hamilton, drawing-room lamp and shade ; Mr. T. Aitken, china tete-a-tete set ; Mrs. Helen Clarke, drawingroom screen ; Mrs. W. R. Wilson, silver photo frame; Mr. A. A. Samuel, silver back hair brush and comb in case ; Mrs. W. L. Murdoch, pair of Vienna vases; Miss Wilson, Royal Worcester vase ; Mr. E. H. Shackell, sugar and cream stand ; Miss Ellie Clark, set of salt spoons in case ; Mr. and Mrs. B. J. Fink, inkstand ; Master and Miss Fink, bronze timepiece ; Mr. and Mrs. Mack, pair of grouse claws in silver as brooohes ; Mr. Glenister, diamond and enamel keeper ring; Miss Nancy Shackell, butter dish ; Miss Nina Shackell, case of poultry carvers; Mr. and Mrs. T. S. Hall, Royal Worcester vase; M. and Mdme. Phalempin, case of silver mounted carvers ; Mr. Fred Grant, pair of combined lamps and candlesticks; Mr. M. B. and Miss Jenkins, satin vide poche; Mr. Renard, large etching ; Messrs. C. and G. Burke, case of silver and ivory carvers. Juste Armand Mortagne¹³
• 14 Apr 1894: The Port Melbourne pier was an animated scene on Saturday, the 31st ult., just before the departure of the R.M.S. Orizaba and the M.M.S. Armand Behic, both of which carried away a large complement of passengers, including many well-known people. Amongst those who booked by the Orizaba were the Bishop of Sydney, Dr. W. Saumarez Smith, Mrs Saumarez Smith, and the Misres Saumarez Smith. Mr George Bell (of Gibbs, Bright, and Co.), Mr and Mrs Impey (Sydney), Mrs Edward Miller, Miss Ada Crossley, and Mr and Mrs Percy Rundle (Sydney).
  Oh board the Armand Behic were :— Mrs A. D. Murphy, Mrs and the Misses Mackinnon, Mrs Alfred Ibbotson, the Misses Ibbotson, Mrs and the Misses Pilcher (Sydney), Mrs Whitehead, Miss Darley (Sydney), Mr Kibble, Mr and Mrs Riggal, Mr and Mrs Sayer, M. and Madame Mortague. Juste Armand Mortagne¹⁴
• 13 Mar 1901: A DIVORCE SUIT. WAS THE WIFE DESERTED? HIS HONOR THINKS NOT. WHAT CONSTITUTES DESERTION? AN INTERESTING DECISION. THE PETITION DISMISSED.
  Mr Justice A' Beckett delivered his reserved Judgment in the divorce case of Mortagne v. Mortagne in the Practice Court to-day. The petitioner was Mabel Lilian Mortagne, and she sought a disolution of her marriage with Juste Armand Mortagne on the ground of desertion.
  His Honor said that the parties were married in December, 1894, and one child, the issue of the marriage, was living with the petitioner. Her father had maintained both of them for some years. Petitioner's husband was a Frenchman, and he was under some obligation to serve in the French army. At the time of the marriage he was a wool buyer in Melbourne, in receipt of a salary of L1200 a year. No complaint was made of misbehavior before 1896. About this time he lost his appointment, got into financial difficulties, and led a dissipated life, drinking and gambling. By various false pretences he defrauded his wife of her piano, jewellery, and other valuables. In May, 1897, the pair were in lodgings in Sydney, but the husband did not pay for them. The petitioner's father paid the wife's share, and she went to reside for a few days with a Mr Hamilton, a friend of her father's. It was there that the petitioner alleges the desertion commenced. Petitioner said that whilst she was staying with Mr Hamilton, respondent told her that he was absolutely destitute and unable to provide a home for her, but if she would give him a chance he would go to Queensland and provide a home for her and the child. She told him that if he did she would go to him. Respondent wrote to her from Queensland, stating that he had obtained employment as a canvasser for a tailor. He subsequently wrote to her from Toowoomba, stating that he was on his way to fulfil a wool-classing engagement, but petitioner afterwards ascertained that he was at this time trying to escape arrest for having pawned his employer's sample bag and embezzled moneys belonging to his employer. He was arrested and sentenced to a month's imprisonment. She next heard from the respondent from Lismore, where he wrote he was engaged as cook to a lot of stone-breakers. A few months later petitioner's father advanced respondent some money to pay his passage to France at the request of respondent's people, who resided in France. When leaving, petitioner told him that if he went to work honestly and provided a home, she would still go to him.
  After his return to France respondent wrote to his wife in affectionate terms, professing contrition for the past. He also said that he had decided to do his military service in France. Petitioner after a time ceased writing to the respondent, her reason for refusing to answer his letters being that she had been informed that he had been unfaithful to her whilst residing in Sydney. He (his Honor) did not regard the statements in the respondent's letters as evidence in his favor. His professions of remorse and affection might have been hypocritical, but he could not find in the letters any evidence of desertion, and the petitioner's refusal to answer the letters she was begged to answer injured her case. He could not draw any inference against the husband from the cessation of a correspondence which the wife broke off. The respondent was not personally served, and had not appeared.
  He accepted the petitioner as a truthful witness, but the difficulty in her case was to find evidence of desertion, which was the only ground on which she could obtain a divorce on the present petition. To constitute desertion there must be an intention to desert. Mere separation and omitting to contribute to the wife's support would not amount to desertion without this intention, and he had to consider whether there was evidence from which he could infer it.
  The petitioner alleged that the desertion began in May, 1897, when the husband went to Queensland. He left with the petitioner's consent, and when he went to France she made no objection to his going, he could see nothing which would justify him in saying that when he parted from her on either of these occasions he intended to desert her. If the desertion did not begin at the time alleged in the petition, from what time could it be held to begin? He could not regard the respondent entering into military service as deserting his wife. Respondent was under compulsion of some kind, and he did not voluntarily separate himself from her. As to sending nothing for her support, respondent knew that her father, a wealthy man, was supporting her. This did not release him from his obligation, but, coupled with his own want of means, made his omission to send money insufficient evidence of desertion. From the facts before him he felt unable to draw the conclusion necessary for the petitioner's success, that in August, 1900, when the petition was presented, the respondent had left the petitioner continuously deserted for three years and upwards. He must, therefore, dismiss the petition. Juste Armand Mortagne¹⁵
• 14 Mar 1901: Divorce Court. Reserved Judgements. MORTAGNE V. MORTAGNE.
  In this case the petitioner sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband's desertion. She was married in December, 1894, and one child, the issue of the marriage, is living wilth her. Her husband is a Frenchman, and under some obligation to serve in the French army. At the time of the marriage he was a wool buyer in Melbourne, in receipt of a salary of £1,200 a year. It was alleged that, in 1896, he lost his position and got into financial difficulties, and led a dissipated life, drinking and gambling, and defrauded his wife of her jewellery and other valuables, and she was compelled to get assistance from her father, who has maintained her and her child for some years. In 1897 she and her husband were living in Sydney in lodgings, for which the husband did not pay, and the petitioner alleged that the desertion commenced at that time. In November of that year the respondent went to France, his passage money being paid by the petitioner's father, and the petitioner told him, on leaving, that if he went to work honestly, and provided a home, she would still go to him. Correspondence had since passed between the parties, and the petitioner had written at times to her husband's parents in France. Several of the later letters, written by respondent to petitioner from various places, were not answered.
  Mr. Justice A'Beckett, after stating these facts, and fully reviewing the evidence, said that he did not regard the statements in the respondent's letters as evidence in his favour. His professions of remorse and affection might have been hypocritical, and what he wrote as to what he was doing, and intended to do, might have been untrue, but there was not, in those letters, any evidence of desertion, and the petitioner's refusal to answer those she was begged to answer, injured her case. The Court could not draw any inference against the husband from the cessation of a correspondence which the wife broke off. The conclusions which a court might draw from a wife not answering her husband's letters were laid down in Thompson v. Thompson, 1 Sw. and Tr. 231. The respondent had not been personally served, and had not appeared, and although the petitioner was evidently a witness of truth, the difficulty in her case was to find evidence of desertion. To constitute desertion there must be an intention to desert. Mere separation and omitting to contribute to the wife's support would not amount to desertion, without such intention. The petitioner alleged that the desertion commenced in May, 1897, when her husband went to Queensland to seek employment, he went with her consent. She was most forgiving then, and when he left to go to France she made no objection to his going. She appeared then to believe in the honesty of his intentions, though he failed to fulfil them. There was nothing to show that he intended to desert her, and his entering into military service in France could not be regarded as deserting his wife, as he was under compulsion of some kind, and did not voluntarily separate himself from her. From the facts before it, the Court felt unable to draw the conclusion necessary for the petitioner's success, and the petition would be accordingly dismissed.
  Mr. Coldham (instructed by Messrs. Hinke and Riggall) appeared for the petitioner. Juste Armand Mortagne¹⁶
• 22 May 1902: DIVORCE COURT. WEDNESDAY, MAY 21. ( Before Mr Justice Williams) MORTAGNE V. MORTAGNE.
  Mabel Lilian Mortagne petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Juste Armand Mortagne on the grounds of adultery and desertion. Mr. Woolf (instructed by Messrs. Waters und Crespin) appeared for the petitioner.
  Evidence was given that the parties were married in December, 1893 and last lived together at the Mansions, Sydney, in May, 1897, before which time the husband had sold all the wife's jewellery and effects. She had to go to a friend's, and afterwards returned to her parents with her child. She saw her husband again in November, 1897, in her father's office, and last heard from him in a letter dated Philadelphia, May 11, 1900, in which he said he would never ask her to come and live with him, but wished for information about their little girl. Evidence taken on commission in proof of respondent's misconduct in Sydney was read.
  A decree nisi with costs was granted, petitioner to have the custody ot the child. Juste Armand Mortagne¹⁷
• 2 May 1925: A missing heir. FOUGHT IN CUBAN WAR. NOT HEARD OF AFTER.
  A question arising in connection with the administration of the will of William Sayer, late of Church-street, Middle Brighton, who died on 11th July, 1911, was finally disposed of by Mr. Justice Macfarlan in the Third Civil Court yesterday. The residue of testator's estate, after provision for gifts to his wife and daughter, amounted to £11,000. By an originating summons in 1920 it was decided that as to this residue there was an intestacy, and the persons entitled to it were the widow and children of testator. The children born to testator and his wife were W. H. Sayer, who died in 1921; Mrs. Mabel Lilian Mortagne, a daughter, and a son, Albert Victor Sayer. The latter was born in 1874, and went to sea in 1892. He made several voyages to Australia up till 1896. Two years later he wrote to his father saying he was going to the war then proceeding in Cuba, and that if anything happened to him notice would be sent to his relatives here. This was the last communication received from him by the family, but shortly afterwards the father received a letter from a friend of his son in America asking permission to open the son's sea chest and to sell the contents in order to pay some accounts. In December last application was made to the court by Mr. J. W. Trumble, one of the trustees under the will, for directions as to whether the trustees were at liberty to distribute the estate on the presumption that Albert Victor had predeceased his father and was unmarried. It was then stated that the family believed that Albert Victor had been dead since 1898, because if he were not he would have communicated with some of them. Mr. Justice Macfarlan then directed that the trustees were at liberty to distribute the estate other than Albert Victor's share, which amounted to about £2000. His Honor adjourned the summons in order that further inquiries might be made from the American War Office, and through advertisements in American papers. When the matter was mentioned to Mr. Justice Macfarlan yesterday Mr. Lowers (instructed by Messrs. Trumble and Hamilton), who appeared for the trustee, said Mr. Trumble, in accordance with Mr. Justice Macfarlan's directions, had written to the Secretary of War, Washington, America, and had received a reply. In this it was stated that one Albert Sayer, born in Melbourne, Australia, had been enrolled, and mustered into service on 23th July, 1898, in the New York Volunteer Infantry, and was discharged from service on 31st March, 1899, at Brooklyn, New York. He had served as a private and was honorably discharged. Sayer on enrolment had given the emergency address as care of W. Sayer, Collins-street, Melbourne, and stated he was single. The War department knew nothing further of Sayer after his discharge. No replies had been received in answer to the advertisements. Mr. Justice Macfarlan made an order that the share of the estate of Albert Victor should be distributed on the assumption that the beneficiary had died before his father. Mr. Braham (instructed by Messrs. Madden, Butler, Elder and Graham) appeared for Mrs. Mortagne, who was joined as a defendant in the application.¹⁸
• 21 Jan 1932: One of the worst bush fires in the memory of the oldest residents occurred here on Friday and Saturday, when a devastating fire swept over the district. On Friday, a fire, which had been burning in the scrub, fanned by a strong north wind, menaced the residence of Mr. McMillan, and in response to a call for help, about 50 men were soon engaged in a fierce fight to save the house and outbuildings. This they managed to do, and the fire then jumped the main road and threatened the residence of the Misses McLean; a break was burned, and the house was safe. On Saturday morning another fire commenced near Miss McLean’s boundary fence, and soon the residences of Messrs. Blair, Boker and Gilpin, and a number of others were in danger. A large band of willing workers managed to save the houses, but unfortunately they could not save the fine lemon orchard of Mr. McMillan, which was destroyed, also a week-end residence of Mr. Harkins. The heat was so great when the place got alight that it was im possible to get near it. In the after noon a sudden change of wind to the south caused the township to be menaced, and a desperate call for help was sent out, and in reply volunteers from Berwick, Narre Warren and Dandenong came to augment the local Bush Fire Brigade, until there were over 200 men, under the direction of Constable Barrett, and other leaders, engaged in the desperate effort to save the homes of Madame Montigue, Messrs. McBride, McDonald, Harvey-Smith, Rev. T. Greenwood, Robinson, J. Campbell, Major Campbell, Miss Elliott, J. Deville, C. Ellis, Claydon, Wright, Binding and Brown. The worst fight was at “Kyogle,” Mr. McDonald’s house; at one time it was felt that this fine residence would go, but the determined fight put up by the willing workers saved it. Here it was that anxiety was felt for one band who had become surrounded by flames, but they managed to get clear, although some of them succumbed to heat and smoke after getting out. The fine garden and plantation of Major Campbell was swept by the fire, despite the efforts of the workers, and hundreds of pounds worth of valuable plants and trees were destroyed, and the fine house was only saved by the superhuman efforts of the fire fighters. Miss Elliott’s house got alight, and part of the roof had to be stripped off before the fire could be put out. Mr. Ellis had the fence and pavilion attached to his tennis court destroyed, and the fire swept through his orchard, only being stopped within a few feet of the house. The house of Mr. Wright was saved by burning a break, as was Mr. Brown’s house and lemon orchard.
  On Sunday afternoon a small fire developed in Salisbury Gully, but it was soon got under control; whilst this was being put out an urgent call for help came from “The Towers,” Mr. Berglund’s property. A large body of men were rushed out, and the fire was got under control before very much damage was done. On Sunday a fire, which had started on the Saturday in Cordner’s Gully, crossed the Officer rd., and threatened the orchard of Mr. F. Love, but it was kept out, and, with the exception of the loss of some fencing, not very much damage was done. Country Fire Authority, Charles Alexander Berglund, Frederick Duncan Love, Olive May Elliott, Jessie Mabel McLean, Agnes Margaret 'Nessie' McLean, David McDonald, Major Charles William Campbell, Thomas Gilpin, John Harkins, Erdmuthe Fredrica Marianne Harvey-Smith, William John Harvey-Smith, David Norman McBride, Rev Thomas William Greenwood, Walter Fergus Robinson, James Cuming Campbell, Jeanne Shepherd Deville, John Hayman Thomas Ellis, James William Goff Claydon, Colin Wright, John 'Pop' Binding, Walter Henry Brown, Thomas Orr McMillan, Isaiah Joseph Cordner¹⁹
• 30 Mar 1933: ON THE PROPERTY “ALSTON,” BEACONSFIELD UPPER MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1933, at 1 p.m. Under instructions from the Equity Trustees Coy., the valuable property of MADAME M. L. MONTAGNE, as described hereunder, will be offered by Public Auction, as above: LAND containing 14 acres 3 roods 8½ perches, or thereabouts, being Let 9 on Plan of Subdivision. No. 1265, and being part of Crown Allotment 66, Parish of Pakenham, County of Mornington, together with W.B. House and other improvements erected thereon, known as “Alston,” Main Road, Upper Beaconsfield. The property, which is beautifully situated on a main road, and commands magnificent views, comprises a well-build Modern W.B. Bungalow, with large verandah all round, and has all modern conveniences, including sewerage, double garage, fowl houses. The dwelling is surrounded by a fine flower and vegetable garden. Water is laid on to house and garden. Title: Certficate. TERMS: Cash, or £200 deposit; instalments of £50 each at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, and the residue at the expira tion of 5 years with interest at 5½ per cent, per annum. THE COMPLETE FURNISHINGS OF THIS FINE BUNGALOW ARE ALSO TO BE SOLD ON THE SAME DAY. Full particulars and orders to inspect will be supplied by Gamble, Anderson Lamb Pty. Ltd., High Street, Berwick. Tel. Berwick 132.²⁰
• 20 Apr 1933: SUCCESSFUL CLEARING SALE. Gamble, Anderson, Lamb Pty. Ltd. held a most successful clearing sale at “Alston,” the property of Madam N. L. Mortadne, at Upper Beaconsfield, on the 10th inst. Furnishings and other effects were unusually good. There was a large attendance of buyers from the surroundipg district and from the city, and a total clearance was effected at very satisfactory prices. The property, comprising a fine bungalow, and 14 acres of land, was also offered, and was “passed in” for private sale.²¹