Helen Mary (Hill) Houghton (1870 - 1913)

Born 4 Jun 1870 in Surry Hills, New South Wales, Australia

Ancestors

Wife of Edward Pomeroy Rundle — married 1897 (to 1910) in Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia

Wife of Arthur Villiers Houghton — married 1910 in London, England, United Kingdom

Died 12 Apr 1913 at age 42 in London, England, United Kingdom

Problems/Questions Profile manager: Chris Pickering [send private message]

Biography

Helen was the youngest child of George Hill and Jane (Binnie) Hill and was born in 1870. See NSW Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Number 1517/1870. ^[1]

She married Edward Pomeroy Rundle, son of Jeremiah Brice Rundle, in 1897. ^[2]

They divorced in 1910 after a scandal involving Arthur Villiers Houghton (who she subsequently married). ^[3]

THE RUNDLE DIVORCE, Wooing a Wife. A DARLINGHURST MARRIAGE. Love letters written to a wife, which were discovered by the husband, revealed an Intrigue which has had a sequel in the Divorce Court, Big Smoke, where the husband was granted a decree nisi. The petitioner was Mr. Edward Pomeroy Rundle, who alleged that his wife, Helen Mary, had been guilty of misconduct with Mr. Arthur Vllliers Houghton, described as an official of the Wakefield (Yorkshire) County Education Department. Though a defence had been put in, the respondent and co-respondent did not appear to contest the case. Mr. Bayford, for the petitioner, stated that the parties were MARRIED AT DARLINGHURST, SYDNEY, in June, 1897, and during a visit to England in 1902 they made the acquaintance of the co-respondent. Subsequently Mr. and Mrs. Rundle returned to Australia and later the wife went back to London alone, the petitioner himself having determined to return and settle in the Big Smoke on the death of his mother. While his wife was in England the petitioner was surprised to receive from his brother a bundle of letters written by the co-respondent to the respondent and from these it appeared that the co-respondent had the intention of MEETING HER AT DIFFERENT PLACES during the voyage home. They were, said counsel, letters of a most affectionate character, and they indicated that the couple were intending to live together. The petitioner wrote to his wife, and she promised to give up the acquaintance. In 1908, counsel continued, petitioner came to England, and went to live at Harrogate. He heard that his wife had been meeting the co-respondent. He was very angry, but in the end accepted his wife's explanation that the meetings had been more or less by chance. Mrs. Rundle, after an illness, was at a later period staying at an hotel in London, and the petitioner one day found a letter she had addressed to the co-respondent couched in the following terms:— 'Dearest, — I am feeling a little better to-day, but still have a good deal of pain and neuralgia. I have thought out my plans, and will this time stick to them, as I feel it absolutely impossible to get on as I am. As soon as I am well enough, say in about a week, nurse and I will go to Harrogate without saying a word, so as to have no fuss. Could we not get rooms at the White Hart? I will not say anything about an allowance until I get away, and then I will get a solicitor formally to settle it, and claim £250. I can have Florry down there, and of course you can come weekends as often as you can.' On finding that letter the petitioner was naturally extremely angry. He wrote to the co-respondent forbidding him to communicate with Mrs. Rundle. The latter, said counsel, promised she would break off all acquaintance, but evidence that came to Mr. Rundle showed that the co-respondent was habitually visiting her at Scarborough. On one occasion the petitioner expressed his views to her very freely with regard to the conduct of the co-respondent, and IN THE EVENING SHE RAN AWAY. Very shortly afterwards the co-respondent arrived and there was 'a great scene'. From that time the respondent and co-respondent, added counsel, lived together. The petitioner, giving evidence, said that the following letter was a fair sample of those sent by the co-respondent, and found in the bundle:-— 'Dearest Nellie,— My, sweetheart, I cannot say how I look forward to your arrival. I LOVE YOU MORE AND MORE DEVOTEDLY, and I want you more and more. To have a 'pal' like you makes a good man. Bless you.— Arthur.' After evidence that the respondent and- co-respondent had stayed at a Scarborough hotel, the President granted a decree nisi, with costs, and gave the petitioner the custody of the one child of the marriage. (Brisbane Truth, 3 April 1910).

From this article it would appear that Helen and Edward had a daughter, Florence.

Helen married Arthur Villiers Houghton in London in 1910 (in St Geo H Sq district Jul-Sep 1910 1a/1185). Note: the possible spouse is obviously wrong and you need to search FreeBMD for Helen M Rundle using the above reference data. ^[4]

She died in 1913. ^[5]

NOTE: there is a FindaGrave reference for Helen Mary (Hill) Houghton which gives a birth date and place of 1870 in Sydney, and a death date and burial of 1907 in Brompton Cemetery. The latter date does not appear to be correct and the contributor has been asked for clarification (April 2024). UPDATE MAY 2024: the contributor has amended the entry and this no longer appears to relate to Helen Mary (Hill) Houghton.

Sources

1. ↑ https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G78H-54C
2. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_Hall,_Surry_Hills https://www.mygenealogyresearch.net/rundle-of-st-neot-cornwall/
3. ↑ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/208012558/22431857
4. ↑ https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2DXC-3WS
5. ↑ https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPLW-9R6Z